Sound check. One, two, three. Sound check. One, two, three. Good morning and welcome to the planning committee for May 5th, 2026. All electronic devices are to be switched to a nonaudible function during committee meetings. As we have quorum present, I'd like to call this meeting of the planning committee to order at 9:31. In the chambers today, we have councelor Matt Francis, councelor Esther Pauls, councelor Kretch, councelor Nan, councelor Wang, and councelor Casar. And on the screen, we have councelor A. Wilson. There are no ceremonial activities today. Clerk Kelsey, are there any addendum items to the agenda? >> Yes, chair. The additions have been noted on the published agenda. >> Does the committee have any amendments to the agenda? Councelor Cretch. >> Thanks. I'd like to defer items 6.1 and I believe it's 9.3 or 10.3 uh with respect to the property known as Philpot Church simply because the report wasn't ready on time to be considered. Members of the community wanted to meet with me. So I said to them, I can't meet with you to discuss the report if it's not available. And so this I'm asking to be referred deferred, pardon me, to the next planning committee meeting. I need a seconder for that. >> Okay. Councelor Francis the seconder. May I please Oh, we're going to have to have an east grove eastcribe vote on this. >> Go ahead. Thanks, Cher Tess. And I'm happy to second this motion. And um yeah, I can understand the council's point of view for wanting to defer this. I just am I I know that the deferrals on the floor, but does that give me the opportunity to ask staff for the reason for the delay and what took so long to get this published? >> Is that based on the instructions? Clerk, >> I would allow it. It's not debating the deferral, but asking for an explanation, which I feel is fair. >> Carry on, counselor. >> Okay. Yeah. Through you, chair. just given the sensitivity of this file and the long-standing history on it and obviously the situation that the church is in. Uh can we get an explanation to from staff why it took so long to get this on the agenda for today? I mean the counselor does have a valid point for deferring this. I just want an explanation from staff uh why this is uh why this took so long to get here. >> Okay. Thanks counselor. We will look to the bench >> through the chair to the councelor. Anita Fayback, acting director of planning and chief planner. Uh there was just some additional time needed to finalize the report. This the appeal has been filed. So there is the placeholder with the Ontario land tribunal. Um and the the deferral or the referral to the next agenda does not impact any tribunal timelines. >> Thank you. And then is the decision is staff's recommendation significantly different than what the com committee of adjustment um recommended. >> Uh I think we're going to >> okay >> stop we're going to hold that back that's something that you can take offline. >> Well the reason I asked that chair is just trying to get a better sense of why this is t why it took so long. Just some clarity around that. It's that that's for my >> And again, I think when we're talking about I think we're just supposed to when we're doing a deferral, isn't it just about instructions? >> Yeah, I just wanted an explanation. That's all >> part of the explanation. >> Go ahead. >> Sorry. Through through the chair, just to confirm the the ask is what was the what were staff recommendation what the staff recommendation was and what the committee's decision was. Uh staff recommended that the application uh not be approved and the committee of adjustment approved the committee of adjustment application. >> Understood. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, sir. Okay. So, what we'll do now is we'll go to the eastcribe vote. >> Next meeting. >> Next meeting. Votes up now for the deferral. Thank you. That carries 8 to zero. May I have a mover and seconder that the agenda be approved as amended? And please indicate with your hand vote now. >> Mover and seconder will be councelor Francis and councelor Pretch. Thank you. Please indicate your hand vote now. And that carries. Thanks. >> Declarations of interest. Members of the committee, are there any declarations of interest? Not seeing any. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. I just wanted my colleagues in the public know this week is mental health week. So, they'll be uh in the foyer uh and I'll have be speaking to uh about mental health, but I just want to say that I'll be leaving in 10 minutes, but I'll be back and then at 11:00 I'll be leaving again for that. Okay. >> Thank you for that clarification and sharing of that that information. That's appreciated. >> Okay. Now, I think we're on to >> Okay. Sorry. Councelor Casar. >> Yeah, just to follow up on what councelor Paul said, uh, as deputy mayor this month, I'll be speaking on behalf of the mayor at 11:30 at the same Canadian Mental Health Association event out front uh, and returning shortly thereafter should the meeting still be going, just so everyone's aware. >> And as things evolve, I think we might be taking an early lunch just to accommodate that. Okay. Thank you so much. because we have a number of people obviously wanting to attend that. Okay. So, adoption of the minutes of the previous meeting 5.1. Welcome counselor. May I have a mover and seconder to adopt the minutes of April 14th, 2026. Please indicate your hand vote now. This is to adopt the minutes. >> Thank you. Pasar and Wayne will be first and seconding that. And let's have our hand vote now. Thank you. There are no items for information and we are now to the public hearings. The public has been advised of how to pre-register to be a delegate at the public meetings on today's agenda. If a specified person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of council, city of Hamilton to the Ontario Land Tribunal, but the specified person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the city of Hamilton before the bylaw is passed, the specified person or public body is entitled to appeal the decision. Thank you, councelor. If a specified person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the city of Hamilton before the bylaw is passed, the specified person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal unless in the opinion of the tribunal there are reasonable grounds to do so. And first off is 8.1 application for the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment for lands located at 471 Moxley Road Flamro. Does the committee wish to see the staff presentation? Okay, I'm seeing a couple Hanads. So staff please come down. Okay, thank you. And I believe this is Abdullah Pasha. Come on down Abdullah. All right. Good morning, chair, members of the committee, staff, and members of the public. My name is Abdullah Pasha. I'm a development planner for the planning division west team, and I will be discussing a rural Hamilton official plan amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment application for lands located at 471 Moxley Road. Okay. Oops. Go. So here we have our site. The subject property is an agriculture parcel within the northernmost corner of the Greensville rural settlement area. The property has a total area of approximately 5.04 hectares. Uh to the east of the subject lands over here is an aggregate resource extraction use. To the south is a smallcale rural industrial use. Uh to the west is a um residential neighborhood and to the north are lands that are majority uh agriculture in nature. This is a location map of the subject property which identifies the proposed land use changes. The lands are designated settlement commercial and zoned agriculture. The official plan amendment application will add additional commercial uh commercial uses in the settlement commercial designation for the subject property. The zoning bylaw amendment will change the zoning on the property from agriculture a zone to settlement commercial S2 zone with a sight specific modification and holding provisions. Uh the property is currently within the Flamborough zoning bylaw number 90-145Z and the new zoning will be within the Hamilton zoning bylaw number 05200. Uh the modifications include relief to the vehicle or parking, long-term bicycle parking space requirements and relief from the parking space landscaping requirements. The modifications also include limiting the permitted uses on the property to exclude sensitive land uses such as daycare or overnight stays so as to prevent conflicts within uh eastern neighboring uh um in extractive industrial operation. Here we have the site map for uh the site plan for the proposed development. The proposal includes seven buildings with 21 commercial units, 351 parking spaces, 61 of which are located within the MTO setback along Highway Number five west. The proposal also contains a communal septic system, storm water pond, and will have access to water through private wells. The property can be accessed by three entrances, two of which are located along Moxley Road. uh over here and one of which is located uh along Brock Road. At the moment, the number of trees that are to be removed is unknown and an updated tree protection plan is required as part of a holding provision uh on the property. Here we have the general elevations for the proposed commercial development. The proposed build form uh can have a maximum height of 10.5 m as per the settlement commercial S2 zone. Um the uh the elevations to the top are showing the frontage of the built horn and the elevations on the bottom are showing the rear portions closer towards the central uh part of the property. And now onto our photo tour. Here we have the photo uh the view of the public notice along Moxy Moxley Road and the view of the subject lands from Highway Number Five West. Here we have a view looking south and north along Moxley Road. Here we have views looking east and west along Highway Number five west. Here we have views looking north along Brock Road and south along Brock Road. And uh lastly, we have views of the lands to the east showing the extractive industrial land use uh from Moxy Road and to the west showing the residential neighborhood. So uh as part of the planning process, this application was circulated to 46 property owners within 240 mters of the subject lands. The notice of complete application was circulated on February 11th, 2026 and the notice of public meeting was on April 24th, 2026. The notice were also advertised on the Hamilton uh spectator and were posted online. Uh there were approximately 20 comments from the public at the time of the complete application submission and approximately eight written submissions um at the time of the public meeting circulation. Um majority of the comments were um not in favor of the development due to the impact of the development on existing groundwater or concerns the impact of the development on existing groundwater increased traffic and noise from uh truck activity and the excessive impervious surface coverage and loss of agriculture land. We received two comments that were in support of the additional commercial uses to meet the community needs. In conclusion, uh the official plan amendment and zoning ballot amendment have merit and can be supported as it is consistent with the provincial policy uh provincial planning statement and conforms to the green bill plan. The proposal complies with the general intent of the rural Hamilton official plan and the Greensville rural settlement area plan and is compatible with the existing land uses within the settlement area and the surrounding rural community. Uh the proposal represents good planning and provides additional commercial uses that can support the existing rural community. Staff recommend approval of the application with sight specific modifications and have requested holding provisions related to an updated storm water management plan, updated servicing plan, a hydrogeeological assessment, a chloride impact assessment, a tree protection plan, and an updated transportation assessment. And that is all. >> Thanks Abdullah. Are there any questions for the presenter? >> Okay, first up is uh councelor Cretch followed by councelor Wang. >> Thanks for the presentation. I'm just trying to understand a couple of things here and make sure I have them right. My understanding is that the zoning here is about 25 years old. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> And so we zoned this about 25 years ago for this intended purpose. And I'm assuming that this commercial purpose doesn't allow for there to be housing to be built here at all or is it just simply for commercial only? >> Uh through the chair. Sorry. So the designation is commercial. So the designation within the um Greensville rural settlement area is commercial. However, the zoning is agriculture as part of the old flamro bylaw and it's uh an artifact of the pre uh the pre or not artifact but it was it hasn't been updated mainly due to a um study needing to be completed on the subject property. This is related to the Greensville subwaterhed. >> So this study hasn't been completed. >> Uh this study has been completed. Um however development cannot be uh or as part of the policy within the settlement area uh does or within the rural settlement area. Uh essentially it stated that development will not be considered until the study was completed. The study was then completed in 2016 which is why we have an application coming forward to amend the zoning to reflect what the existing designation is. So, back to my question about the commercial designation that you're calling it. That commercial designation does not allow housing to be built here. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And if I understand what you're saying, I just want to make sure I understand the time sequence. You're saying there was a commercial designation 25 years ago, but then a study in 2016. Uh, can you explain how those things are colliding with each other or informing one another? Because it's really confusing to me. If we have agricultural zoning, a commercial designation and then a study a study like how are those things talking to one another to inform what should be happening with this land? >> Uh so to the chair I'm just going to do a correction. Um in terms of the zone, the zoning is an older zoning. The designation is a I believe a newer one. Uh but it's uh essentially um within the Greensville settlement area, the property is designated uh rural commercial or or settlement commercial. That designation uh was planned a while ago. I'm I'm not exactly sure what what the correlation is between the why the zoning wasn't immediately uh amended at that time, but due to main policies within the within the official plan, it it indicated that there was a an aquifer study that needed to be completed before development can be done on the property, which is why the zoning wasn't amended amended at that time. >> My again these are questions for clarification. I think I understand the answers, but you're here. You're the expert. saw ask you how does this relate to the urban boundary? >> Is it within the urban boundary existing urban boundary, the new one or the the old one? Can you explain that? >> Uh this is within the urban boundary to Okay, thank you. Um my last question is that you said something about an unknown number of trees. >> Um could you maybe make an estimate there? I've seen the property in terms of the fact that it's doesn't have a lot of trees on it, but when you said an unknown number, is there a ballpark estimate you have there in terms of trees? Like talking hundreds? Are we talking a dozen? you have a sense of that >> um through the chair. So in terms of the trees there uh the tree protection plan that was provided or that was reviewed by our staff uh indicated that there were more trees than shown on the protection plan. Um essentially the plan showed uh much fewer trees that were going to be protected than that were available on site. So a re-evaluation of that needs to be done and it's not within the hundreds but it it's mainly within the tent. So about like approximately 20 trees, 20 30 trees. >> Thanks. And this question may not be for you, but when I look at the property in an aerial view, what I see is it's sandwiched in between two different types of properties. So different uses happening across these properties. Is the intention or the idea that this is meant to service individuals who are living on Brock Road from a commercial perspective, either those adjacent to this property or those who are south of this property on Brock Road, isn't that the intention and the purpose of the planning here? Is that why this is a commercial designation? Is this why we're doing this? Because we're intending to service commercial. The commercial is supposed to service the residents who are living on Brock Road. Is that the intention >> through the chair? Um that's part of it. Yes, that is correct. It's uh this area is meant to be commercial mainly not uh as part of the policy. It also indicates that it's supposed to service the existing residences uh residents of Greensville settlement area but also the broader rural community. So these would be um residents within the actual agriculture area, rural lands. Um basically providing them with a a a an area or facility with commercial uses that can be accessed uh in an e in an ease location. >> Thanks. Those are my questions. >> Okay. Thank you, counselor. On to councelor Wang. >> Hi. Thank you for your presentation. I just need to understand um the holding provisions because if the um neighbors around are saying that groundwater is a significant issue then what is the rationale for the storm water management plan as well as the servicing plan like what does what's the intention behind the um holding provisions I just like I just don't really understand how we would get to those particular points so if you can help me understand that Thank you. Uh through the chair. So we've requested a number of holding provisions mainly service related. Um these are to uh essentially address the concerns of the p uh public related to uh quantity and quality of the storm water. So uh the purpose of the hydro geological assessment is for that uh issue. It's to address whether or not the site has sufficient amount of uh groundwater uh in terms of quality and quantity to be able to service the site for all the uses that are will will be permitted. Um similarly, storm water management design. Um there's a storm water pond that's proposed on the site and this is to ensure that uh the storm water uh design meets all requirements that are laid out within our recommend uh within the uh recommendations provided through our study >> that was done. Um for more information regarding the uh servicing we also have members of uh our public works uh water division uh Ahmed he can answer more questions related to that as well. >> Okay so that's probably at the report stage then I can ask those questions. Okay. So then the question now is uh all of these because there are several holding provisions around water. Um I just needed to understand the the actual line of how >> storm water affects groundwater that affect Okay. All right. I think that those are questions that I'll ask the agent and then ask the um water team at report time. Thank you. >> Thanks councelor Wang. Next up is councelor Casar. >> Yeah, thanks Chair Tatis. Just a clarification question for the bench just around the question that councelor Kretch asked around the urban boundary and the answer. My understanding is this is within the green belt and the green belt is not within the urban boundary. So just ask the question again to the bench. Is this site within the urban boundary through you? >> Through the chair to the counselor. The Greensville rural settlement area is within the rural area. It is a settlement area um that's located in the rural area that has a very specific plan and land use uh schedule developed. Um the it was approved when the rural official plan was approved. So back in 2006 the Greensville rural settlement area plan lays out different designations. So it's think of it as a secondary plan but it's a smaller plan for a rural settlement area. So it lays out location of residential, commercial, institutional, parks etc. >> Yeah. Thank you. And then just one followup on that. What is the uh geographical scope of the Greensville rural settlement area relative to this uh development? Is this on the edge of it? Is in the middle? Just just some perspective. Is that possible? >> I can answer that. >> Whoever can answer that >> to the chair. So it is in the northernmost corner of the settlement area boundary segment area boundary. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, chair. >> Okay. Thank you, councelor. Next up, we have online councelor A. Wilson. Thank you. Apologies, councelor Chair Tatison. I'm under the weather today, so I might not be as clear. I did just want to clarify a couple points. Councelor Casar just got one of them done there. Uh my question through you to staff is during the 20 the 2006 secondary planning process. Uh my understanding is that water availability particularly groundwater was a substantial concern and that was what led to the lands being designated but with a condition that a future study had to be conducted regarding the um basically the groundwater impacts of any development on the site. So these as part of 2006 they were designated to be developed but they were frozen until it could be proven that the development could happen and what standards should be put in place for that development to happen. That study came back in 2016 and my question through you chair is did the 2016 study say the standard should be that there's no um basically pre-development change to the impact it has on groundwater. So in other words um it should the current state of the site now should be maintained in terms of its um ability to recharge and impact on groundwater at a high level. Is that the summary of the 2016 um study? uh through the chair. That's something that can be answered by our uh stormwater staff. But from my understanding based on uh the review of the um policies, it indicated that the groundwater um in this area should maintain or the groundwater recharge should maintain the existing uh status. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll have more questions after we hear from delegates. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, counselor. I'm not seeing anybody else up here. So, may I have a mover and second to receive the staff presentation? Councelor McMe and councelor Wang. Thank you. Um, please indicate your hand vote now. That's unanimous. Thank you. We now have uh Rashika Angish from the Angish group is in attendance today. Rashika, would you come down and do your presentation? Good. Good morning. My name is Ruchika Angish from the Angish Group. I am a professional planner representing on behalf of Winbury Holdings, Inc. Uh I do have the owners uh and their representatives in the audience here with me along with uh Bob Phillips who from JH Cahoun Engineering who is an engineer who has worked on this file and uh our hydrogeeological consultant Chris Helmer is also here uh this morning. Um thank you. uh Abdullah has done a great job in uh presenting uh the the proposal and the information. So I would not repeat uh some of that but as uh noted this property is located at the edge of Greensville settlement boundary. It is about five hectares um with uh no municipal services that are available meaning no municipal water and sanitary services. There are no natural heritage features on or uh surrounding the subject property as well. Uh there is uh this in front of you is our proposed development. It we are looking at an official plan amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment uh to allow commercial uses. The official plan amendment is required to expand onto uh the commercial uses and uh the current zoning on the property is agricultural. So, uh, a zoning bylaw amendment is required before we can advance the commercial development in accordance with your official plan policies. I'll get into a little bit more details. Um, as uh mentioned earlier, the the property is within the rural settlement boundary of Greensville. It is designated within the settlement area. Um, it's designated as settlement commercial within the Greensville secondary plan. There are a range of commercial uses, limited commercial uses that are permitted within the secondary plan. So, uh our application proposes to add three additional uses uh uh the tradesman shop, a commercial school as well as an art gallery as a permitted use. It just provides a little bit flexibility um when uh renting out these units. So, that is where the the proposed official plan amendment comes in. The zoning bylaw amendment is required to change the zoning into a settlement commercial. The current zoning on the property is agricultural. It has not been updated through uh the the comprehensive reviews uh after the settlement uh the Greensville secondary plan was implemented. Uh the uh the zoning actually limits um the uses on the property uh in accordance with the list that is in front of you. So uh very traditional dry smallcale commercial uses are being proposed given the site is on a private well private services and uh septic system. Uh so things like art galleries, artist studios, uh financial uh banks and catering services, convenience stores, um uh repair services, things that do not require ton of water are being proposed at the site. In addition uh through the development of the site plan, it was noted that we need some sight specific uh zoning provisions uh with respect to uh the proposed development. Uh we're seeking a parking ratio of 2.34 uh spaces per 100 square meters of the uh gross floor area of the buildings uh in a total of 289 uh spaces. We do note that there are 61 additional parking spaces that are provided within the MTO corridor that are not accounted towards the numbers uh according to uh what is being required under the zoning bylaw but uh the number of actual parking spaces will will be sufficient. We did complete a parking study to um to analyze the the parking ratio as well as other aspects related to parking. Um for example like the long long-term bicycle parking uh rate uh we're providing six spaces whereas 12 are required. However, short-term parking spaces uh bicycle parking spaces are fully provided on the site. Um uh a reduction in landscape parking area um calculations is also requested at 6%. Th this does not impact the overall landscape uh uh coverage. it uh this parking this landscape requirement sorry uh this landscape requirement is only for uh the the parking area landscaping um and it will not have any any impacts on on the overall development of the site. So we do uh we worked with staff uh to to address some of the comments that were received through the circulation of this development. Um uh and the holding provision that is being proposed is uh a result of the review of the technical studies that uh were submitted. So the holding provision will require us to update the storm water management report uh the traffic impact analysis based on uh the comments from the ministry of transportation uh hydrog uh assessment uh uh for a detailed report has been completed on the hydrogeeological assessment. So through the holding provision we will work with staff to ensure all city uh guidelines are are being met. Uh there were some technical comments on the servicing plan as well as the tree protection plan. Again, those uh things will be addressed through the the uh holding provision uh when we come in front of council to to remove the the holding uh that will be on the site. So again, as uh noted uh a list of studies that were submitted as part of this official plan amendment and zoning pilot amendment applications. Um we have thoroughly worked with staff over the last couple years with respect to ensuring the application is deemed complete. Um and uh and has no adverse impacts on uh the existing surroundings or the surrounding uh land uses that are that are existing and planned for future. Um there was an open house that was held uh in July uh of 2024 about 2 years ago. There were 71 notices that were sent to uh 500 meters of the site. There were 27 attendees at at the site. Main concerns were related to uh the with the water and the traffic uh that have been reflected in in the comments that have been received through this circulation as well. Um I would note that the the traffic impact analysis uh was completed has been submitted. It has been reviewed by the ministry of transportation and the city staff and again through the holding provision we will address the the balance of the comments uh that we have received through through this uh circulation uh with respect to the the water situation. So uh a very thorough assessment of groundwater analysis was completed by uh our hydro ge geologist uh Chris Helmer. Uh the hydrog report uh did analyze the underground water conditions as well as any impacts on the surrounding residential areas specifically and it does note that there will be no uh further uh impacts on on that groundwater. We will uh wait for the staff review through the formal resubmission of the entire all the studies and the drawings and uh we'll continue to work to address any any other questions that come through uh as we continue the process on on getting the approvals for the commercial development. So uh again I'll keep it brief uh with uh looking at the committee's support with respect to uh the proposed official plan amendment and the zoning ballot amendment applications as the development is within a designated area of uh city's official plan. It is designated for commercial. Uh it is consistent with the provincial planning statement. Uh it it is in conformity with the green belt plan. Uh it conforms with the policies of uh the city of Hamilton rural official plan as well as the Greenswell rural settlement area secondary plan. Um it also conforms with the policies of the Mid Spencer Greenswell rural settlement area subwater uh watershed study sorry 2016 and is internally in keeping with the regulations of the zoning pilot. So we are looking for support uh on on this application. Happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Okay. Thank you, Rashika. First question I have is um are you in support of the staff report? >> Oh, thank you. Yes, we have read the staff report and uh we are supportive of of staff recommendations. >> Okay, thank you. We have a number of questioners. It's councelor Kretch, councelor Wang, and councelor Makin for now. So we'll start off with councelor Kretch. Thanks. In your description of what you're doing here, you described it as very traditional. My understanding of the planning situation we're faced with in the province is anything but traditional. Why is that your approach to planning here? >> Through the chair, I might need some help in clarifying the the question. So um when you meant it's a traditional planning approach, could you please elaborate? >> Sorry, >> you said that it was your those were your words. You said that we're using a very traditional commercial approach here. Um those were your words. I'm asking you to explain your words. Thank you. >> Sorry. Thanks for the clarification. So my uh what I was trying to say is these are the traditional commercial uses that we are proposing on the site uh there uh to because the property is on private well and private septic system uh that we are very limited on what type of commercial uses can go on the property. So uh things like convenience stores, banks, very small scale commercial uses. That's what that meant uh that word traditional meant uh in in this particular scenario. >> And I'm not suggesting the next question. I'm not suggesting that I support us getting into green belt lands. And I think that the staff answer this is not in the urban boundary. And so that's a separate discussion. Notwithstanding that, my question for you is, is it possible for you to make an application for zoning differently here to support um non-traditional uses? For me, one of these one of the things that everyone is saying they want to do is see non-traditional uses, something where we're having a little bit of density, those kinds of things in models where there is building. So, I don't quite understand why you wouldn't be applying that approach to this um applying to try and do something that would support future growth. um not a traditional approach. >> Thank you for the question through you chair. Um it's uh I think our biggest limiting factor for uh not going full-blown on a on a commercial development is uh lack of municipal services. So if there were municipal water or sanitary services that were available then yes th those things can be explored further uh to uh there's only limitation on how much we can provide based on the technical assessments that have been completed on the site without impacting any of the natural environment and that is the reason why we have to keep it at at a smaller scale. In future if there are again this is going to be a phase development. So in future if there are uh any um expansion of services that are contemplated by the municipality then certainly there could be expansions that can be looked at at that time. >> Do you have the right to apply to ask the municipality to expand the services >> uh through your chair? uh we can ask but again that is something that is within uh this is a rural settlement area and uh based on their capital projects I believe that that would be an answer for for staff to um help me out here that if there are any plans in near future for the development to be on or expansion of services in that area. >> Thanks. My last question for you is just that you've chosen this path forward, right, to go forward with this. You had other things you could apply to do, but from your perspective, those aren't realistic, I think, is what you're trying to say from your perspective >> through the chair. Yes, you're absolutely right. The the lands have been sitting vacant for a very long time and uh and uh it it's the right time to get, you know, uh the studies and and get the development going. There is definitely a need in that area and uh it is it is given the present scenario it is unrealistic to wait for longer. If the services were contemplated within a very short term then it makes the development more um we could have waited but we don't see that that is within the books right now. >> Thanks for the answers to your question my questions. >> Thanks councelor Cretch. Next up we have councelor Wayne. Hi, thank you. Um, just a question around again the water taking because I do recognize as you answered to councelor crutch a lot of these are traditional type supposedly very minimal water taking um type businesses. However, on the preferred or sort permitted uses case, there's things like catering services or an artist studio or there might be some sort of trades person shop. Some of those are waterheavy because they might need to. So, how are how are how is your proponent how is your client going to um keep true to some of the holding provisions because of the fact that um these are some it depends on whoever's in those spaces and you're going to build for whoever's going to be in those spaces. So I think the water taking is my primary concern and how do we ensure that those holding provisions stay true and that we are preserving or trying to maintain the water table as much as we can. Uh I'm going to ask for our engineer to help me out a little bit here if if Bob Phillips can please uh join me but I can address some part of of your question. Uh with respect to the list of the the list provides a little bit flexibility to retain uh tenants and as part of our permits um we would we would need to monitor how much water taking is uh for that well and then also the septic will be an MECP the min the ministry of environment approved uh septic system as well. So uh those things will be regulated heavily under the ministry guidelines as well. So it we would as as owners would have to be cautious in terms of how much water usage, what type of uses and we don't overload the site with uh heavy water users as well. So that's >> Thank you. I think that that's all my questions is really just around the water taking. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Ted McMe questions. >> Thanks uh chair. Um, is there any farming going on on the land at the moment >> through the chair? That's correct. Currently, the the property is being farmed. >> The properties what? >> Property is being farmed. >> Yes. >> You know, we lose about 350 acres of prime agricultural land every day in this province. You aware of that? >> To the share? Yes. >> Okay. Um a lot of people in the area are already installing sistns because of the water concern. You're aware of that? >> Uh through the chair. Um my understanding from our hydrogeeological report that was completed that there are no issues with the water uh taking for the site. >> You might have trouble convincing. Anyhow, we won't debate that here. Um now maybe later with staff. Um, you're aware that there's a plan to uh change the plan around the north quarry from uh restoring it uh as a as a as a lake, a vista, a fishing place to filling it with soil. >> Uh through the chair, my understanding of extractive industrial in general is they have to rehabilitate after the extraction is completed. So I'm not aware of their plans like what would be to what extent it will be rehabilitated back to. >> Well, let me fill you in just just quickly um because it's uh it's an important point. Um it was to be rehabilitated uh as as a water waterway place where people could go and uh recreate. Uh that was part of the the saw off around the Greensville against serious pollution group that negotiated a deal with Lefarge. Uh now it's a different group. Um the estimate uh um my understanding from doing a little bit of research is that there'll be 3 million truckloads of soil traveling up and down uh that area in the road. Uh if that plan goes through or were you aware of that? Was that raised at the public meeting? uh through the chair uh again our technical assessments included all the information that was available at the at the time. So the the traffic study was completed. It has been accepted um and it assessed the current traffic flow with respect to the current developments and also the future projections based on uh what that area um uh is is potential to grow into. So, uh, the the traffic study was completed. So, I'm assuming the the technical details would have accommodated all that information what was available. >> 3 million trucks. That's a lot of trucks. Okay. Thanks. >> Thanks, Councelor McMaken. Uh, councelor A. Wilson. >> Thank you. Through you, chair. Um, Rashik, I believe on your very last slide, uh, there was a list of policies or things that you were saying you were compliant with. We're compliant with this plan. We're compliant with this plan. We're compliant with this one. And then one of them was the 2016 subwatershed study. Given that that hasn't been reviewed by staff, and I understand that's the intention of the holding provision, are you saying that you intend to be compliant with that study? You believe you're currently compliant? Could you just help me unpack that bullet point where you're saying you're compliant with the study? My understanding is that because compliance hasn't been quite determined yet, that's why staff are suggesting you're far enough along or we think that we could work this out with you via holding provision, but we don't currently have compliance at this time. Um, could you walk me through what your understanding is of what you say when you say you're compliant? >> Yeah, through the chair. Thank you for the question. So we did complete so the okay so the green swill subwater uh shed study it was uh completed in 2016 as it was noted by by staff. So the it it talks about the new development areas that are to be constructed within the rural settlement area which uh the subject property is part of and uh the the preferred strategy uh that came out of the subwaterhed study. It included combination of low impact development measures uh along with traditional storm water man storm water measures like storm water management ponds to address issues uh related to flooding erosion and water balance and things like those. Uh the study also addressed related to nitrate loading. So I'm I'm just giving an overview of the study for everyone's benefit. the the purpose of these strategies was to include the quality of the groundwater and to protect uh the and improve the reliability on the existing wells. So uh looking at that information that is where how we provided uh we completed some of the technical assessments as well. And uh and based on the comments uh we understand that we need some additional work on the storm water management as well as the hydrogeeological uh report needs to be reviewed uh by staff um to address that that big component of the subwater shed study so that um we are fully compliant. Uh and the holding provision protects uh that as well that until the the sta until all staff and agencies are satisfied with uh the studies uh that are submitted or will be submitted um as resubmissions. Uh until those are satisfied, we will not be able to advance with uh removal of the holding and the site plan control application and obtain building permits. So there are a few steps before us uh before we can we can get the the construction started. So which includes um ensuring that there there is compliance with the subwater watershed study. >> Thank you. I appreciate that expansion through the chair. Just wondering you spoke about storm water management ponds and low impact development measures as some of the recommended solutions from the strategy. Could you talk about at present what solutions this development application is using? Is there a storm water management pond in this application, for example? Could you discuss what the low impact development measures you've you've incorporated right now? And it sounds like if there's going to be a change or a resubmission, what are those plans maybe that you could highlight where you think you're going to get into compliance or where you're trying to get in compliance? >> So, I'll I'll touch a bit on that again uh through your chair. So, yes, there is a stormwater management pond that is proposed uh on the site. So the the preliminaries stormwater management brief that was completed uh by uh JH Coahon Engineering um it it noted that their their site will include I'm reading off the report uh will include quality controls through the use of a dry stormwater management pond that will outlet into a ditch. uh the quality controls will be achieved through the use of oil grid separator and uh the the site will not have any impact downstream on the or on the adjacent land owners. So um the um again my understanding is that there there is some additional comments that we have received through the report and we will address those. Um in terms of low low impact development um there will be a number of elements that will be included through the site control application process. So through the detailed design we will be looking at some additional information with respect to uh these low impact development and then uh those will be again through the approval process. at this time uh you know the the very detailed design of of the site has not been completed knowing that we have a a long uh ways to go before uh getting full approvals on on the process itself. >> Thank you. Last question from me through the chair. Appreciate um you offering some of this information. Where on the site is the dry storm water management pond currently anticipated? It is. Sorry. I'm going to just pull up the site plan. S. Can we have the site plan pulled up? Okay, thank you very much. So, It's on the east side along Moxley Road as uh I'm not sure there's no pointer. So um the the storm water management pond is located along Moxley Road along with uh the communal septic bed uh that is shown as well as a big block. >> So just for clarification, I'm looking at the screen now. Councelor Wilson, can you see that screen? Yeah, my understanding is the agent is talking about between the two driveways is the intended location of the stormwater pond on Moxley Road. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. >> Chair. Yes, that's correct. >> Any more? >> I I have no other questions and I appreciate the answers. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Wilson. Uh thank you. May I have a mover and second to receive the delegation from the agent? I'm going to assume it's councelor Wilson and councelor McMakin as first and seconder and please indicate your hand vote now and that's unanimous carries. Thank you. We do have registered delegations and our first delegation is Amanda is Amanda Andrews followed by Mark Osbbor and we do have some other delegations that will come forth and that's Jane Lewis and Tara and Felix Pisen and they'll be pre-recorded. Okay, Amanda, welcome. You have five minutes. Um, you'll hear a ding and then you have one minute at that after that ding. Okay. Thank you. >> Good morning, chair and members of committee. I may need an extra minute or two if that's possible. My name is Amanda Andrews and I'm here to speak in strong opposition to the proposed resoning at Moxley Road, 471 Moxley Road. I want to begin by acknowledging that staff have recommended approval of this application. However, I respectfully submit that this recommendation relies heavily on future studies and holding provisions to address fundamental issues that should determine whether this development is appropriate in the first place. At the same time, the report frames this proposal as providing necessities to the local community with respect that characterization is not supported by what is actually being proposed. A tradesperson's shop, a commercial school, an art gallery with a large multi-building commercial plaza do not cons con cons constitute essential day-to-day services for residents. Labeling this as necessary risks justifying a scale and intensity of development that is not appropriate for this location, particularly given the unresolved concerns around water servicing and environmental capacity. At its heart, this is not a zoning technicality. This is a decision about whether a large-scale commercial plaza with seven buildings, hundreds of parking spaces, and private servicing belongs in a groundwater dependent rural community. And based on the evidence before you, the answer should be no. Water is not a condition. It is a constraint. Staff acknowledged that this development will rely entirely on private well and septic septic systems and that further work is required through a hydrogeeological assessment, a storm water management redesign, a chloride impact assessment. These are not minor details. They are core risks. The fact that these studies are being deferred through holding provisions mean that means that council is being asked to approve the use before confirming the land can safely support it. that reverses the proper planning sequence. In a community where residents rely on a shared aquifer, water is not just another servicing consideration. It is a hard environmental limit. We already know from lived experience in this community that wells are declining and in some cases failing. Residents are already trucking water in. That is a baseline condition today before this development is built. and we have to look to at both quantity and quality. This proposal presents yet another significant risk of contamination to an already vulnerable community surrounded by quaries and dewatering operations. So the real question is not whether impacts can be managed later. The question is should additional demand be introduced at all. The scale of development contradicts smallcale rural commercial. Staff described this proposal as supporting the rural community with necessities. But the actual proposal tells a very different story. This is 12,000 square meters of commercial space, seven buildings, 21 units, hundreds of parking spaces, private servicing infrastructure and storm water facilities and bike storage. I'm not sure who bikes in that area, but I wouldn't recommend it. That is not smallcale local servicing commercial. that is a regional scale commercial plaza inserted into a rural settlement area. And importantly, the proposal even requires reduced parking standard, zoning modifications, and multiple technical exemptions. If this were truly compatible and appropriately scaled, it would not need to be adjusted to this extent to fit. Holding provisions do not eliminate risk. They defer it. The staff report relies heavily on holding provisions to address groundwater impacts, storm water design, chloride contamination, and servicing feasibility. But holding provisions do not solve these problems. They simply postpone them. And once zoning is approved, the principle of development is established. At this point, there is significant pressure to resolve remaining issues in favor of construction. Council is effectively being asked to say, "We'll approve it now and figure out if it works later." This is not precautionary planning, especially in a sensitive hydrogeeological area. Cumulative impacts are being ignored. The report acknowledges that Greensville is already experiencing growth pressure and references the subwhed study, but this application is still being evaluated in isolation. There are multiple proposal in in this area, residential and commercial, all drawing from the same aquafer, all adding imperous surface, all increasing runoff and contamination risk. Individually, each project may appear manageable, but together they represent a system level risk to groundwater supply, water quality, storm water capacity, and long-term environmental stability. There is no comprehensive cumulative analysis before you today. Without that, it is impossible to conclude that this proposal represents good planning. Loss of agricultural land has already been mentioned today and that is permanent. This proposal converts 5 hectares of agricultural land into commercial use and once that land is paved, it is lost forever. Agricultural land in this area is not just about farming. It contributes to groundwater recharge, natural drainage, and environmental balance. replacing it with a high impervious commercial site directly undermines those functions. This decision sets a precedent. It app if approved, this will not be the last application of its kind. It will establish that large-scale commercial uses with private servicing and groundwater dependent areas are acceptable and that precedent will be extremely difficult to contain. In conclusion, the staff report concludes that this proposal represents good planning, but good planning requires more than policy alignment on paper. It requires respecting environmental limits, protecting essential resources like water, and considering long-term cumulative impacts. Right now, those tests have not been met. This proposal asks you to approve the use before confirming service feasibility, the scale without proving compatibility, and the impact without understanding cumulative effects. This is not a low-risk decision. It is a high consequence one. For this reason, I respectfully urge the committee to refuse the resoning application for 471 Moxley Road or at minimum defer it until cumulative groundwater and environmental impacts are fully understood and demonstrated to be sustainable because once this is approved to and built, the impacts are permanent and in a groundwater dependent community those impacts cannot be undone. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you Amanda. We have some questions. So, one moment will populates. First up is councelor Casar. >> Yeah, thank you and through you chair. Thank you very much for being here. Amanda, um you mentioned holding provisions a few times. I just wanted to get clarity on your understanding of the holding provisions and why the um report has already obviously been proposed with asking for approval and uh having holding provisions. Just wanted to get your understanding of the holding provisioned feature and what that means in this application because it sound like you said it's it's just delaying something that's inevitable. If you could clarify your understanding. >> Sure. Through the chair. So my understanding of the holding provisions is that they are um a set of conditions that need to be met or um that need to be proven to be met. >> Right. Okay. And to carry that forward then if they can't meet the conditions then the development cannot proceed. Is that your understanding? um through the chair simplicity uh that might be oversimplifying things. I think I don't know that if the holding provisions if some or all uh need to be met in order for it to be approved. So I think I would seek more clarity on that. >> Great. Okay. Yeah, that helps to line up a question for staff later on which we'll get asked. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you councelor Casar. Good point. one of my questions that I was going to bring up to staff later. Um, Amanda, there's no one else right now, so thank you for your delegation. >> Thank you. >> Apologies, chair, if I could just >> uh councelor Wilson, sorry. >> Apologies, Amanda. Thank you so much and thank you for your very eloquently worded delegation. I think just picking up what councelor Kasar was asking. Um there's a question I think that we're going to explore with staff later in this meeting and you just don't have the advantage of being a delegate later in the meeting which is what is the risk um in a cont contentious appeal. So you've come forward and you've said you have legitimate concerns, you have serious concerns with this application um wherein we're in that technical process there and so holding provisions is one way to handle that. Um there's also potentially if we said no today there is the opportunity for an appeal and that could be uh the decision then ultimately made by OOLT. I think I know where you stand, but are you just able to answer that question for committee and maybe offer a little bit of a justification as to, you know, what is your perspective and why is that your perspective um on what your concerns are and how you'd like them to be addressed? >> Thank you, Councelor Wilson. Um through the chair, so if I understand your uh question correctly, it's um even with other provisions, would I approve of this proposal? Um my question is if we reject the proposal today um the applicant has a right to appeal uh and take that to the Ontario land tribunal and get a second they basically have appeal rights. You would as well as other committee members who have delegated could also follow that process. Just asking there's a there's the process withholding provisions which is a city process and then there's a process that kind of leaves the city's hands a little bit and the OOLT becomes the adjudicator. They all have different right. There's no guarantees of an appeal. I'm just trying to get your sense of one of the one of the potential consequences of saying no today is that this application could be appealed to the OOLT and then council does not have the final say on it. I again I think I I know your opinion regardless, but I'm just wondering if you could offer that um and maybe a bit of a justification as to how you got there. >> Thank you through the chair. Um so yes, I understand the process and um and I I guess the associated risks of a no today and where uh the proposal can go from there. Um but I think making a statement today um representing the constituents from this region and understanding what the sensitivities are for this area um sends a signal and and I think every signal is really important in this process. Whether it will be approved at the land tribunal or not remains to be seen but I don't think that's a good reason to um not listen to what you think should be done today. >> Thank you. I appreciate your answer there. >> Thank you, Amanda. And I'm not seeing any more questions. You may have a seat. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Our next in-person delegation is Mark Osborne. Morning everyone. >> Good morning Mark. And just letting you know you have five minutes from the time you begin and then uh if you need any more time, do you think you can pull it off in the five minutes? >> Hope so. >> Okay, good stuff. >> I hope so. I may ask for a few extra minutes if that's okay. But uh yeah, if we could just uh My name is Mark Osborne. I live in Greensville on Harvest Road. I've been there for over 40 years and I have a private well that has the the levels of the aquifer declined over the years. Uh if I could have the first overview of the the area as you'll see here Greensville is sandwiched between these quaries and the edge of the escarment and generally the water flows from the north to the south. Now during EA hearings back in the late 80s uh we know that that is generally the flow but it is so intricate and intertwined that even uh certain um hydrogeeological firms can't agree on how it flows. So if we could have the next slide up please. There we go. Okay. So, I'll just turn my thing on here. So, here is the processing. This is the processing area here. This is the subject property over here. And this is Greensville here. And this is Taylor Crescent over here. And there other there are other areas of residences in the area. So the decision is being presented as a routine planning matter. It is not. It is a decision about whether a fragile interconnected environmental system, one that sustains our homes, our water and our identity, can withstand further stress. We already have quaries that are dewatering every minute of every day. Those dewatering activities in the Duffren quaries and the Lafarge, they're now called Amorids, have already lowered the water table in our area. And we know that for a fact by examining our pipes and our wells. Okay. We are also we are also part of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, meaning Webster's Falls and Tws are there. And we also sit within a city designated, as I understand it, a designated water protection zone. There is a sign coming into Greensville that states that these are not symbolic labels. They reflect real ecological sensitivity. The city itself has acknowledged this through its investment in a city waterfall master plan. As you're all as you you're all aware where the consultants that you have hired have stated very clearly long-term sustainability of the aquifer and watershed is essential for the attractiveness of those waterfalls and tourism. And yet we are here considering a development that directly increases pressure on that very system. From a hydrogeeological perspective, Greensville sits on a carsted limestone aquifer. A fractured, unpredictable system where groundwater movement is difficult to model and even harder to manage. multiple expert firms such as Golder Associates, Konesoga Rovers, and other firms that we have dealt with over the years regarding a prior landfill have historically disagreed on how this aquifer behaves. This alone should signal caution. But more importantly, we have something more valuable than models. We have real world evidence. So water tables have dropped, wells have been deepened or abandoned, residents are relying on sistns and trucked water, and residents have to manage what they have. On Taylor Cresant, people struggle to complete basic daily tasks like running a wash cycle. And I mentioned earlier, I've been here for 40 years and my levels have dropped. From a technical standpoint, this proposal introduces multiple stressors. Increased groundwater extraction, extensive imperous services, preventing recharge of the aquifer and chloride loading, construction dewatering for foundations. They are not isolated issues. They interact. The staff report relies on future studies. hydrogeeological storm water chloride through holding provisions. But those studies are not confirming safety before approval. They are being used to justify approval before certainty exists. In an acryer system this complex, you cannot rely on limited point in time data to make long-term decisions. You cannot assume a bore hole drilled in December gives you any supportive data on any wells in our area. Add to this drought and climate change bearing down on all of us, especially when we know the system is already under stress. From a transportation perspective, the location is already compromised. Highway 5 is heavily used by quarry traffic and has documented history of serious accidents. This proposal adds multiple new access points, increased traffic near a residential area and a school, and significant truck activity from 11 loading docks in their proponents plan. These new movements will directly conflict with existing quarry truck routes, increasing both congestion and safety risks. And this is happening in the context of additional pressure from large-scale quarry operations proposing 3 million dump trucks over time to fill the Amids North Corey realation project with over 39 million cubic meters of soil along Highway 5. This is the this is the definition of the our impacts. But the aquifer, roads, and the community experience them together. This is a classic case of cumulative impact failure where no single approval causes collapse, but each one moves the system closer to it. And right now there is no clear threshold, no capacity analysis and no safeguard in place. If groundwater becomes unreliable, residents cannot remain on wells. At that point, the burden will shift to the city to provide municipal servicing even if it is feasible. That is a significant financial liability for the city. So in closing, water is not just another servicing consideration in Greensville. It is the foundation of our existence from a planning perspective, from an environmental perspective, and from a human perspective. The system is already under stress. Approving this development adds pressure where there is no capacity left. You can always approve development later, but you cannot rebuild an aquifer once it has been depleted or contaminated. If we get this wrong, the circumstances are permanent. I urge you to make the only decision that protects our community and its future, and I ask to reject this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mark. I see that we have councelor Mikin waiting to ask you some questions. Thanks, chair. Good morning. >> Morning, Mark. Um I was around in the late ' 80s as you know it was quite a battle to uh to uh share information and um to elicit a lot of common sense in uh some of the settlements in including u a commitment to promise that the north quarry wouldn't be filled with land. it would become a potentially a water resource, not a not a not a liability. So, I want to begin simply by thanking you for your leadership over the years. I've learned more from you than you'll ever learn from me and um so I I've appreciated that. Um, can you tell us um a little bit uh more about um you know the the guts, the heartbeat of a community that's anxious about the impact? When what are you hearing straight up from people? What we're generally hearing from Greensville is that we're Greensville feels like it's targeted all the time and the residents are quite um fed up with us being targeted. Uh back in the late 80s, early 90s, uh the quarry company, Steely at the time, wanted to fill the South Quarry, which was 200 acres, with Toronto's garbage. and we we initiated a a a group called GASP back then to study uh that proposal uh with regards to water regards to the aquifer. Um and we had all kinds of consultants that come in and and uh from from social studies to hydro geological studies to all sorts of all sorts of other studies. Um, and that took seven years out of our lives, >> I remember, >> in order to in order to go through that EA hearing process. Um, and you know, in the end it was a um, the environmental assessment board said no to that and but the ministry of the environment appealed and uh, it was a political decision at the end that actually canned the proposal. So, and then we have an issue with tourism in the area with streets being clogged with tourism cars and vehicles. That took several years with the Hamilton Conservation Authority to to get that rectified and um we are pleased to be part of the City of Hamilton waterfall uh management plan. We've been very active in that as well and we think there they've done a super job of of conducting public uh meetings on that. Um and then we had Carmuse which were two kils on site in the south processing area that wanted to burn waste. >> So the community had to fight that. So um overall our community is tired. We're stressed. We're frustrated that all of this happens to be pointed in our direction. And like I said earlier, water is our it's our lifeblood. I mean, it's without it, we don't have any life at all. And we know again that that you know, drilling a hole in the ground does, you know, and pumping and um trying to find out how many gallons per minute you can pump out of that hole does not relate to any of the private wells in the area. it's specific to that location only. And I think uh another resident, Amanda, alluded to that that there needed to be a cumulative study of the entire area in terms of aquifer use, quality, quantity, all of that sort of things. Hope that answers your question. >> Yeah, very good. Very um it's been fight after fight after fight after fight. >> Um gasp Greensville against serious pollution. Um I'm two-time former mayor up there as some some of you may may recall was probably the single um in the last 40 50 years the single most important community uh collaborative advocacy against the potential environmental disaster that that I'm aware of. And um Mark, I I just admire you and the gasp team and the people that led that fight. Um and I'm sorry you're tired getting tired. I understand. But hang in there. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> I'm just looking up to see if uh councelor A. Wilson has any questions. He's there's no one else on the list. >> I'm I'm good. I appreciate the delegation substantially. Thank you. Okay, thank you Marky. Mark, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Our next delegate is Jane Lewis. Is Jane here? >> Virtual. >> Virtual. Okay. >> Yeah. Jane, if you're with us online, could you turn your camera on? And when you do that, Yeah. So Jane, if you're unable to connect with us right now, what we'll do is we'll go to a pre-recorded delegation and then we'll come back to you after the pre-recorded delegation. Just prepare yourself to go live in about 3 or 4 minutes. Thank you. So, is this Jane or is this Tara? >> Okay. So, this is Tara and Felix Bizen. It's a pre-recorded message. Thank you. S direct. Hi there, concerned citizen. Thank you so much for taking the time to hear from me today. Um, I live right here in Greensville. Directly across from the proposed development site. In fact, you can see it just behind me. That is the proposed development site at 471 Moxley Road. Every morning when I have my coffee or when I'm enjoying my workday, I get to overlook a beautiful green space. a main reason for why I purchased in this area and of course that development would certainly change the atmosphere in this community. What you see behind me is not just open land. It is a part of a protected water source area that supplies wells for hundreds of homes here in the community. And that well is sensitive. That well is shared and it's under a ton of pressure as it is today. I noticed that the proposal does not include dedicated water source. And so that means it's going to draw from the same well as hundreds of homes here in Greensville. And hundreds of homes depend on that well today. And so it's putting our water security at real risk. And once that system is compromised, it cannot easily be fixed. In fact, many of our neighbors on our road today have water trucked in because there isn't enough water for them to access the well. And now we're talking about a new commercial development coming in tapping into that same well resource. Beyond water though, this is going to be an impact on daily life. I already mentioned how it would selfishly impact my daily coffee. But the reality is this area is not designed for commercial traffic, which means there's going to be increased trucks, increased deliveries. It's going to increase congestion and affect some of the safety, especially for families, walkers, cyclists, all of who live around this area. This is a quiet residential area, and it's why people like me and my neighbors chose to live here. I think most importantly though, this development is not needed. Within 10 minutes of where I live, I can access everything I need. Dundas is just down the hill, 4minute drive from here. It has all the local shops, grocery stores, and Waterdown is about an 8 minute drive from here where there are tons of these commercial developments that has everything from Canadian Tire to Walmart to gas stations and there's everything in between. Not to mention the fact that we've got farmers markets around that are able to supply us with things that we need within a 3minut drive. This community is not lacking on amenities. No one in our neighborhood has asked for things like an art gallery or commercial school to be here. This proposal is not responding to community needs. And then finally, this land is zoned agricultural for a reason. It sits within the green belt in an area that I think must be protected. It must we must protect our natural systems, our water sources and that rural character for long term. Reszoning this area is going to set a very dangerous precedent. The one that protected land can be converted for short-term development regardless of the environmental risks or all of our community input. Thank you. I'm asking for you to protect this community, the one that we live in. I live in with my neighbors, my husband, my dog. I'm asking for you to protect our water and protect the integrity of our neighborhood and the green belt and I hope that you reject the proposed reszoning at 471 Moxley Road. Sincerely, a concerned citizen. Thank you so much for hearing from us today. Take care. Okay, with that S, do we have any contact from Jane? >> Okay, Jane. Uh, Lewis, if you can come online, put your camera on so that you can make your delegation at this time. >> Yeah. So what we have at this time if Jane can't come on is we have some nonregistered delegations and the first up is Natalyia Kosonovich and she's virtual. Natalyia and Natalyia is here. Okay, welcome Natalyia. You have five minutes. You may begin your delegation now. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Hello everyone. My name is Dr. Natalyia Kasabovich. I'm a naturopathic doctor in the community. I'm a resident of Greensville and I have lived here for over two decades now. My opinions align very closely with that of the other community members who are concerned. U Mark and Amanda especially, thank you so much for your presentations and your very eloquently worded um uh comments that you had. So, I'll start off. Greensville is a rural community that depends on wall water for drinking and local farmland for food production. The proposed commercial development at 471 Moxley Road would permanently remove valuable agricultural land and contribute to urban sprawl in a small hamlet that lacks infrastructure to support this scale of growth. Residents are already concerned about traffic, noise, air quality, and water availability. Highway 5 is a two-lane road that is already heavily impacted by truck traffic from nearby quaries. This proposal must also be considered alongside the Amry's quarry re rehabilitation project that we already discussed which is expected to add millions of truck trips along Highway 5 over time. The cumulative impact of safety congestion noise and particulate matter cannot be ignored. Many homes in Greensville rely on private wells and me many residents have already needed to install sistns and get water delivered regularly due to limited water and concerns with the water table. Before approving a commercial plaza with seven buildings and hundreds of parking spaces, the city must carefully assess the long-term impact on groundwater demand, storm water runoff, and the sustainability of our rural water supply. We asked the council to protect Greensville's rural character, farmland, water resources, and quality of life by projecting or by rejecting or reconsidering this proposal. Um, a few other notes I have here. So, this is kind of a rhetorical question, but I'm curious um about Rashika and the others from the Angish Group. Where do you guys live? Do you guys live in Greensville or the surrounding area? Are you aware of all the concerns that we face? And would this be impacting your day-to-day life? It's alarming to hear you say that this is going to be a phased development. Those were the words that you used, Rashika. That sounds like more development can be expected in future years that we do not want as we do not want this development at all. As Mark mentioned, Greensville residents are already so fed up with having to take unpaid time away from work and our families to fight these ongoing concerns to protect our community. This is only one concern in a whole other list of concerns that we're continuing to have to address. Submit comments for attend meetings like this on work days during work hours to try to get our voices heard. It seems that every time we submit comments and vocalize our concerns, we're kind of shifted and things go to the next stage despite the things that we vocalize. So something that's interesting to note is um Amry and Lafarge Corey have already had issues simply with staff using the water for washroom purposes at their property which is very close to 471 Moxley Road. So how can we guarantee that these businesses in this commercial plaza are not going to be overusing water? I think it's going to be very difficult to actually keep track of how much water is being used and to police their water usage. I'm curious why this land is not able to continue to be farmed since it's zoned as agricultural. As previously mentioned, and I'll echo this concern, um the bike spaces would not even be used in this area because it's not a safe space to be biking. There's a lot of truck traffic and that could be very dangerous for people who are biking. Um we do not want or need any of these proposed commercial services. the ones that were listed, we already have things like that a short drive or walking distance away. We all moved to a small country hamlet for a reason. So, we're not looking for a bank or for other commercial services to be located within walking distance or very close by. Um, many residents have already vocalized that we are opposed to this and we do not want this and we will not utilize the businesses that are going to be put into this plaza should this be approved. It's a busy commuter route, so it's doubtful that others that are kind of driving along the Highway 5 corridor there will even utilize these businesses. They might not have time to stop there. I believe that the parking spaces will likely be used mainly for tourists who are coming to the area to hike and that will take away from paid permit parking that is set up at the conservation areas and the waterfalls which is also income for the city. Residents are concerned that the groundwater testing that has been conducted may not accurately reflect normal site conditions as the area was reportedly used for excess snow storage during this past winter where we had a ton of snow. Snow melt and road salt runoff could affect groundwater levels and water quality measurements. So, we ask whether this was accounted for and whether further multi-season testing will be required. I believe that third party testing should be required and not someone that Angish brought in themselves. As Mark mentioned, we live on a complex aquifer. Some people, even in my neighborhood, have regular water access, whereas myself and many of my direct neighbors do not. So, it depends on what side of the street you live on, what hill you're nearby. Like, there's a lot of factors that come into play with the groundwater. So, one bore hole and one isolated measurement during one season of the year is not an accurate reflection of our groundwater access. Um, in closing, Angish, I believe that you would be doing your tenants a disservice by renting out space in this commercial plaza that will likely not receive enough business due to the community's rejection and the inconvenient location. I will reiterate that there is no need for these services in our community and our community from what I've gathered so far, we do not want these things. So to finish off, I'm curious why you want to proceed with this. You are going to continue to receive a lot of community push back and frustration for land that has very limited proposed uses. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Natalyia. Uh, I'm not seeing anybody with any questions for Natalya. So, Natalya, you can um stick with us, but just take your camera off and we'll go to the next delegate. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> Thank you. This is Elena Gravener and she's virtual. Elena or Alana? >> Okay. Well, let's try for Jane again. >> Jane, are you available? Calling Jane. Jane Lewis. Okay. At this point, no Jane. No. Alana. Okay. So, I will call out. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? You may come on down. Once you get to the podium, please identify yourself. There'll be some paperwork there to sign. Okay. First thing you're going to do is you're going to share your name with us and then when you begin to speak, you'll have five minutes. You get a one minute tone. I think you've seen what's going on. So, okay. Okay. Uh, hi. My name is Barbara Gild. Um, sorry, this is all really emotional for me. Um, I'm not well. I have, uh, several conditions going on and we're still trying to diagnose some of them. Um, I have lived across from the quarry in that field. I am probably the closest one to it. I'm right smack in front of this thing uh my whole life. So almost embarrassingly 60 years almost. Um I've always felt safe that nothing would happen because who would want to build beside a quarry? And the field has always been comforting just because it's it's an open space. As was said before, people move to this area because it's quiet, it's rural, they want to raise their little kids in a place that's safe, that doesn't have a ton of traffic. I am well, first of all, I was a little girl when uh it was just old Brock Road. That was Brock Road. I remember when they built Brock Road, the new Brock Road, and um I remember how difficult that was just building the road as far as the noise and the trucks and the air pollution. I am terrified to think of the building and the environmental impact, the air pollution, the noise pollution, the emotional impact that it will have on people, changing that field from agricultural to anything busier. Um, I am so used to going into my living room every day and it comforts me to just look out and see the emptiness. I watch the trees. I watch the little birds. I watch all the little animals. And it's my home. If this thing goes in, I mean, it's staggering the uh depth of it. Um, I am and my doctors actually are very concerned that it's going to have a severe impact on my health, on my breathing, on my heart disease, um, and the rest of my things that haven't been diagnosed yet. Um, I don't think you can even imagine the amount of noise and dust and pollution and insanity that would go on to build something like that. And I was personally offended when the woman from the English group said something along the lines that this was a necessary thing. It was time to do it. I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my whole life. There is no need for it. As was said before, we can get to Dundas. We can get to water down quickly. Nobody wants this thing. Nobody who lives there. I cannot imagine looking out my window like I do every day and seeing buildings and people and traffic and parking spots and everything else. The additional traffic is going to mean more accidents. As things get built up, usually crime follows. They see houses that weren't on their radar before and now we will be. Um it's um it's it's upsetting to me that the first thing that this group sent out was um technical questions that we were supposed to answer about our water. It was the water that was the big deal. And the water is the big deal. Believe me, I have myself run out of water. I have a well right in front of my house, right across from this field, the closest one. I know people right behind me, as was said before, cannot do a full load of laundry in the washing machine without running out of water. How can anybody possibly be thinking that this is a a good idea? This is a stupid idea. I don't know who came up with it. Clearly people who need some more money. As I said before, it's offensive. Um, it's painful. It is It is It is painful to my soul. without sounding ridiculous that the first thing we think about is the money and these people wanting us to draw maps of where our weeping tiles are. Rather than asking the people who live there, who have chosen to live there because it's quiet, nobody asked us if we wanted it. Nobody. Nobody said, "What do you think about this?" It was, "Tell us about your water." It wasn't, "Do you think this is a good idea? How do you feel about it?" I can tell you I am sick about it, physically sick. Every time I think about it happening, I have physical symptoms. As you can see, I'm very sad about it. If it happens, I will be devastated. And I don't understand how people can live with themselves knowing that they would be hurting another human being like that. And I cannot be the only one. Um, I did send in a giant letter for the planning committee was several pages. I won't read it all off to you now. Um >> Barb, >> yes. >> At this time, I'm the chair up here. You have passed your five minutes. >> That's fine. >> And I just wanted to say that your connection to the land is obvious, and we do feel that. So, thank you for your delegation. And I'll see if there's anyone who wants to ask any questions. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Councelor M. Wilson is up now. >> Hi. Good morning. Thank you for being here and I'm sorry to hear that you're not well. I wish you only good things in recovery. Um I just wanted clarification. You you mentioned that you received a a letter asking you some questions about >> Oh, I think we received three or four of them. >> Oh, okay. Um could you just elaborate a little bit about the what the letter was from and what >> they seem to be sent out by the English group um to all of us in the community and they were I wish I brought it with me. I could have. They were asking for to scale drawings of our property where our wells are situated, where our weeping tiles were, where Everything associated with water was and it was to be to scale. They asked technical questions about the wells that nobody understood. Unless you worked in in water and wellwater, you wouldn't even know what those terms meant. And they sent out I I would say three or four of these things. And they kept asking and asking and asking and finally they sent out one that was less detailed as if they were like I'm sure they got some interesting responses and then they asked for one that was less detailed but um they were just badgering us about the water over and over and over and every time I got one I was like are you freaking kidding me? Nobody knows the answers to these questions. I am not doing your work for you. I'm not drawing to scale my my lot and my water and my situation. It is not up to me to do that. It was insulting. >> Thank you. >> No more questions. Counselor, >> Barb, thanks for your delegation. Take your time. Take a bre a deep breath and then you can make your way back to your seat. >> You need me over there. I apologize for being so emotional, but I can't help it. Everybody's emotional about where they live. We understand. >> I would ask you to imagine this happening across from where you live without your consent. That's all. Thank you very much for listening to me. >> Thank you. >> At this time, I'll ask for a second time. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? One final time. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Did your hand go up, Mr. Coleman? Just joking. Um, I'm not seeing anyone's hand go up or anyone raising up to speak. So, may I have a mover and a seconder that the public submissions were received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed. And I'm going to look up to councelor A. Wilson and then I think I'll go to councelor Ted McMe for the first and seconding and this will be an escribe vote now. Or should we be talking at this point with questions for the staff? Okay. The vote is up. Okay, that that carries 12 to zero. The public meeting is closed. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the report recommendations? At this point, we'll just take the mover and seconder and then we'll have questions to staff. So again, councelor A. Wilson. >> Uh, chair, I don't I won't be supporting the main recommendation today. So, I think it's a little awkward for being me to be the mover. Happy like if you can help navigate that on the procedure side, but I think it just makes things a little harder than it needs to be. >> Excellent point, Councelor Wilson. Um, any takers here to move and second to approve the report recommendations? >> Okay, we'll put it on the floor. Okay, we're going to put it on the floor first and we'll have we'll populate the list for questions. >> Councelor Wang's putting it on the floor. Looking for a seconder. No, no seconders. Councelor Casar seconds. Thank you. Well, this is for an important aspect that our committee members can ask staff for further clarifications at this point and we will go to councelor A. Wilson. >> Thank you uh through you chair. I just want to thank all the delegates and again apologize for not being able to be there in person today. Uh just still recovering from some illness over the weekend. I think it was really clear hearing from residents today uh some of the concerns specifically regarding water that we hear as well as the concerns that we hear when any any development happens and people are concerned about the growing pains related with the development. I do have a question for staff specifically about how the holding provision and the 2016 watershed study get to that I think level of confidence that the community is looking for which is that there's no adverse impacts and I'm wondering if staff could elaborate um through the process of clearing the holding provisions what standards are being used so for example are we coming up with standards that are sight specific based on previous studies are we using ministry standards that are handed to us are we using city of Hamilton standards, but how are we assessing uh no negative impact and how what is the actual process of clearing that holding provision look like as the recommendations currently propose >> uh through the chair to the counselor. Um maybe I'll start and then perhaps turn it over to growth management um staff just uh at a high level in terms of the use of of a holding provision. So that's a fairly common planning tool that's available under the planning act. And so a holding symbol can be used um to identify the ultimate use of land, but really what it does is it prevents or limits the use of that land or development of that land until certain criteria are met. So certain conditions are met. Um, and so in terms of the holding provision that's in front of planning committee today, um, I can ask staff to elaborate a little bit more specifically um, on the specific details, but when you look at the standards that are being applied and how they're to be cleared, uh, they're based on different uh, approved uh, requirements. So there are um, city of Hamilton guidelines for hydro geological studies. So that's one aspect. So that's a council approved document. And then there are also Ministry of Environment uh requirements that have to be met. So ultimately development cannot occur and a building permit cannot be issued until all of those requirements are satisfied. They cannot be satisfied in part and they cannot be satisfied for a portion of the property. So development on the entirety of the lands cannot occur until all of those criteria are met. >> Thank you. Through you chair. I'm not sure if development engineering is going to jump in, but maybe I'll ask a follow-up to just target the question a little bit more carefully. In this specific case, one of the criteria that the holding provision should meet from the 2016 subwaterershed study is basically no further impacts than what what is operating as appeal. I'm being a little bit late in my language, but that's essentially it shouldn't be any worse for the groundwater than it is today tomorrow after development. Between the ministry guidelines and the council guidelines for hydro geologic studies, how will that standard actually be looked at on a sightspecific basis? because I think residents are concerned right now that that result won't be satisfactory. And so I guess could more spec specificity be done on either what the studies are done or to what standards those studies will be done um given the technical nature of especially the first two to three delegates we heard and some of the feedback they were bringing. I'm just hoping we can kind of match that technicality in the response. Um if that works through you chair >> through the chair to the councelor I believe source water protection staff are available so I'll ask um them if they're able to provide a response >> so through the chair my name is Ahmed I'm a PM in source water protection um I can certainly answer your question so uh for this specific application uh we requested the applicant to complete a hydro geological study for the site. Um, following the city of Hamilton hydrogeeological guidelines, uh, which essentially adopts the the approaches and methodologies that the provincial ministry of environment guideline D54 and D55 outlined um, industry standard for assessing uh, sustainability of private services for both water and sewage. Um and so essentially we'd be looking for that hydrogeeological report once completed um to make sure that it followed the guideline and the approaches and it confirms that confirms two things. One is um it can it demonstrate that the intended use can be serviced uh for water and sewage privately and the and secondly the use of those services does not result in adverse off-site impacts. >> Thank you through the chair. Final question for me on this. I believe how are cumulative impacts to a larger area or an aquifer considered either in our um city specific standards that were discussed there or through given that they're it sounds like we're largely borrowing from the ministry. Um the various ministry standards that are being used to assess this. Um I think that's the from what I've heard from residents the base of the concern is that those ministry standards basically don't meet the mark of what they're experiencing. Um can staff comment about how cumulative impacts are currently considered um under those kind of templates that have been given us to us from the ministry? So through the chair um so in this case we do have a Greensville subwaterhed study back from 2016 and part of that study amongst many things uh the assessment of cumulative impacts from future sort of uh impact in the rural settlement area of Greensville was assessed uh from two major uh sort of elements. number one is the complete buildout of the Greensville RSA or rural settlement area and secondly um from uh climatic sort of conditions such as extended drought conditions that could be encountered and so what is the impact on the local groundwater resources across the entire RSA uh if those sort of scenarios would play out. Um and so what we would be looking for in the hydro geological report are two things. One is the sight specific assessment to understand how this specific development again would you know confirm if it can be feasibly serviced for those services. And secondly how this development would result in any on-site and off-site impacts. And secondly um uh then we would require that assessment to uh review and consider the outcomes of the subwatershed study and the impacts uh for the RSA in their assessment and build upon the sight specific um assessment to essentially confirm you know um uh to confirm what are the long-term water level declines and water quality impacts and and confirm you know look uh whether those dry conditions uh that are accounted for in the subwater study, will this development make it worse? Um and will this development be able to provide the water even when those strike conditions are being encountered? Um so so once we received the report uh for our review we'll be we'll be uh reviewing against those sort of two uh I guess lenses. One is the site specific and the other one is um how does how were the results of the subwaterershed study um incorporated. >> Thank you. Um final question from me on this chair just if staff could talk about um if this went to appeal. I think that's a pretty standard answer like this happens anytime there's a conversation about not following staff advice but just so that could be added as part of committee's broader decision-making. I think I've I've let everyone know where I'm at on this file, but um if it would be possible to have a comment about if committee did not approve the recommendation today, what are the next steps um and any potential risks or outcomes or benefits that come from that? Through you, chair. >> Thanks. Thanks, counselor. Um who's going to take that? >> Thank you. Through you, chair. So uh if this uh the decision is denied or uh decision made for denial then it is up to the applicant and uh to appeal the decision of the committee um to the Ontario land tribunal and from there uh city staff would then or the city would then have to u acquire the assistance of a uh private uh planning consultant not a member of the city staff because the city recommend or the staff recommend commendation was for an approval whereas the decision was for a denial and then from there it would the decision would go to tribunal and through the process of the tribunal. >> Councelor Wilson, any final comments? >> That that was my final question. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. And now we'll go to councelor McMaken who is a bit rushed here because he has to be at another engagement 11:30. Thanks. So I'll try to keep it brief but um let me just say that uh uh the concern I have um um this is a statement not a question chair um is the multiplicity of holding provisions. Um um there was a time and a place when um it was expected that people making a presentation particularly a dramatic presentation would do their homework and we come together with all this information together. I'm not comfortable with a multiple series of holding provisions. I think the point that was made before is once the horse is out of the barn is out of the barn and uh I'm equally concerned the the process that may may lay ahead for these folk at OOLT tribunal which as we know isn't always as sensitive to uh to some of the uh rural um interests. Um it's in the green belt. It's in a water protection zone. Um um you know there's a history of bait and switch here. You know you're going to do a nice nice water course, you know, rehabilitation. Now it's going to be landfill. You know, 3 million trucks trucks of dirt. God knows where it's going to come from. I know we by laws to protect that. I don't know we're going to get that kind of soil here. So So there's a there's an integrity issue here for me and for the citizens who have been through a lot over the years. uh and some hypocrisy that's coming home to roost in terms of previous uh um hard-fought victories in the community uh to now be faced with a a massive proposal from a a group that has legitimate economic interest. I don't I don't dispute that. But uh I'm I'm worried about the development crawl on once the once you open it up, we're in trouble. So I I I'll just make those comments. U and uh I I really I'm really very concerned about generically the process that uh we're trapped in as a as a horseshoe when it comes to something as simple as listening to our our community and their struggle and uh and uh responding u it's not meant to offend anybody but responding cumulatively in a sensitive and thoughtful way. Thanks. Thank you, councelor. I think you're going to make your way down to your presentation at this time. Councelor M. Wilson. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Councelor Jeff Bey is next. >> Thank you, Chair. And uh apologies I couldn't be there in person. And a lot of my questions I think have been asked, but um it's it strikes me similar to I think the last speaker just how wildly out of place this application seems to be in this particular setting. I'm I am familiar with uh this part of West Flamro. uh been in that area several times, familiar with the property, understand the dynamic at play here. But if I could maybe just get um a a um restating I think of Director Fayback's comments if I just think I understand it correctly and again not having the benefit of being in the room. Um, there are a tremendous number of holding provisions on this uh application, but I didn't hear any particular confidence in the ability of those holding provisions to ever be lifted in in any short amount of time. So, I'm just trying to understand the rationale why why an approval recommendation would come forward given the substantial number of challenges that that this development would face. Um, and so I guess two-part question. Do I understand correctly staff's concerns with the number of holding provisions? And then number two, is there any insight into staff's thinking as to why a recommendation would be presented here given the number of uncertain elements associated with it? >> Okay. Thank you, counselor. That's quite clear. We'll turn over to staff >> to the chair to the counselor. I'll start with the second part of the question first. I think looking at the official plan and looking at the Greensville uh settlement area plan um which was approved through the approval of the rural Hamilton official plan back in 2008. These lands have been identified for development. So they've been settling commercial since that time. Um the zoning has not uh been updated while we've done the rural zoning. These lands have not been brought uh into 05200. um nor have they been updated to reflect the intended land use. So in terms of uh the analysis um keeping in mind what that vision is for the Greensville settlement area and these lands in particular um and in terms of understanding the uh unique circumstances in the rural area, staff are recommending approval with the holding provision which would allow the city and um um would allow the city to be able to assess the required studies. Had this been a draft plan of subdivision, these requirements would have been dealt with through a draft plan of draft plan of subdivision conditions. Uh the tool that's available to us to ensure that those um studies and assessments are completed is through the use of a holding provision. Um, so staff are supportive of the application with the application of the holding provision and as I indicated in an earlier response, development cannot occur until those requirements are completely satisfied. >> Did you get the answer to the first part? >> Yeah, I think I I understand the the framework of the decision- making here. Um, I'm I'm just going to kind of um save everyone the trouble and and vote in opposition to this. I don't think that that this is um appropriate at this time. I don't think that uh there's a a feasibility of being able to proceed in an appropriate way in this area given the constraints. So, I'm just going to vote in opposition. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Bey. We're going to go for questions to councelor M. Wilson and then when councelor M. Wilson has finished with her questions. We'll go to anyone who wants to make general statements. >> You're up, counselor. >> Thank you, chair. Uh, two questions. Uh, the first one, uh, there was reference by the agent about um at site plan the capacity or the the will to install low impact development standards in the design. And I just need some clarification uh from city staff. There's been so many changes to the planning act and the capacity of municipalities to a for inform and affect development. If I could just have some clarity on the capacity of the municipality to instruct that low impact, please. And thank you. >> Uh through the chair to the councelor. Um there's been previous legislative changes and proposed legislative changes that are restricting municipalities abilities to require green building standards. So there there is a new er posting out uh for consultation. Staff are currently working on preparing a response. Um the the province is um through this most recent Euro posting providing additional clarity on what municipalities can and cannot require uh as it relates to green building standards and as it relates to the site plan process as well. >> Thank you. So it's fair to say there is some lack of definition and certainty but is it also fair to say that there has been a further restriction in the capacity of municipalities to um require LI at site plan >> through the chair to the counselor. That's correct. We we um are being restricted in our ability to require. Um it would not it could not be a a requirement but it could be um a voluntary those could be voluntary um elements but municipalities cannot require them through zoning bylaw or through any other uh bylaws under the municipal act. >> Thank you for clarifying that. My second question is just one of um obligation and capacity building for reasons of full transparency. Uh one of my colleagues asked a question of of the first delegate who by the way was extremely eloquent. Thank you. Of um one of calibrating risk and often in um these settings uh we are asked after the effect after the effect what happens next? What is my role? How do I? And to that end, uh I heard that if uh this committee and subsequently council votes to not approve the staff recommendation, the onus is on the applicant to appeal, they have that right. Um could you through the chair again because there have been so many changes. Um I believe the former chief planner advised at least 28 to 40 changes to the planning act since 2018. Could you um advise on the capacity of residents to participate in in an appeal through the chair? >> Um good morning Patrick McDonald legal services. Um through the chair uh residents are permitted to apply for party or participant status in any appeal. Um and is up to the tribunal whether to grant those statuses. A party would be uh expected to provide evidence and call witnesses uh whereas participants would be uh able to provide a written statement to the tribunal for consideration in their decision. >> Thank you for that. Um my final question just on the on the uh theoretical process is bless you. Um if an OOLT delivers a ruling, is there a capacity thereafter uh for someone or some agent or some minister to overturn that ruling or to change it in some regard? Through the chair. um through the chair. No, there's no there's no mechanism um in the planning act that will allow for that. Um the minister may issue a minister's zoning order um for a property which can supersede any OOLT or municipal zoning if they so desire, but that's a separate process from the normal appeals route. >> Thank you. So that would be in the hands of the government of the day uh to act that if they so wished >> through the chair. Yes. >> Thank you for bringing that clarity. >> At this time, I'm not at this time, I'm not seeing any other questions, but at this time then I will accept comments from the group and you can populate that list now if you want to make comments. First up with comments is councelor Cooper. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, you know, we've heard a lot of um concerns about water and traffic and it's really material in terms of what's happening in this neighborhood. Uh, I believe when people move into a neighborhood, there's an implicit contract. You know, people know what they're moving into and when we surprise them with uh developments that they didn't know about, um, it is lifealtering. Um, I've seen in my own ward, you know, and uh, I really believe we have to give residents a voice and that's what we're doing today. And that's what's good about this process. And I think we have to respond to what residents concerns are because truly they live there. And I've seen the power of that in my ward where we've listened to residents voices and we've been able to impacted. So I'll be voting no for this today. Thank you, Chair. >> Okay. Thank you very much for that, Councelor Cooper. Councelor Kretch. >> I'll keep it brief. I'm not going to support this application. I understand the complexities of the planning file, all the things the province is up to, the various pressures and levers they're putting on us, but from a local planning perspective, it just doesn't make much sense to me to add a storm water impact in a place where there isn't one, changing something that's currently being farmed into a parking lot and doing what the developer themselves called a very traditional plan or use for this. Look, these are the most untraditional and conventional planning times we're faced. The province is at one hand forcing us to grow and the city is struggling to maintain an urban boundary. There's all kinds of complications here. Uh traditional just doesn't make sense. I know it's more complicated to plan um non-traditional uses uses, but that's what we need here um in this space specifically because it's part of the green belt lands. I'm not in favor also of expanding regardless if there's some technical sort of excision that allows us to do so. Um these are still green belt lands and they're still not within the urban boundary. Um, I think that this needs to be rethought entirely. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Cretch. Councelor A. Wilson. >> Yeah, I want to start just by thanking residents again. I think the story Mark specifically told about just the 40 years of impacts in the area. I think speak to how some of these decisions feel like surprises to residents. Um, back in 2005 when the green belt was coming together, all of us from a city-wide perspective understand that the white belt lands are the bits of the what could have been the green belt that just wasn't included for various reasons at the time and a lot of those were financial political reasons. We can look back at and go, okay, so there are some lands left out and then we had to come back in 2020 and make a decision about that. in the 2006 to 2008 process around the same timeline when the Greensville Secondary Plan was being considered and then in 2008 when it was incorporated into the city's official plan. Um these lands were designated for development and were designated as part of the community. As councelor Casar pointed out, they're also at the very corner. Um if they were just on the other side of Highway 5, if they were just over there, just over there, just anywhere else, uh they would have been treated like a traditional agricultural lands and this wouldn't have been appropriate. this wouldn't have been considered. It wouldn't have moved this far. It's because in 2006 we drew a line in a shape file that had this land and this subject property on one side of it. Um that now so many of these decisions are there. And I think that's just something to recognize when we think about the impacts of these decisions and these kind of zonings that we make that sometimes it's not actually coming till 20 years down the line is when that development application comes in and we're basing it by the standards and the rules that came in back in 2006 to 2008. Um I agree with other speakers. I don't think when you look at this conversion of farmland to a parking lot, when you look at it being on the edge of a settlement area, when you look at the fact that there's two other commercial plazas in Greensville serving a similar function for a community of under a thousand residents uh with the community of Dundas and Waterdown right next door, like I I think there are planning arguments that this doesn't fit into the broader picture. Um and most compellingly, I think it's the fact that not only are residents opposed, but residents are substantially concerned about the impacts. um that I know it's our job to proceed with facts, our job to talk about what these standards are, but I think there's a substantial concern um regardless of just process familiarity that the provincial process and some of these standards don't do enough to protect residents over the long term across multiple development applications. And that's the concern that they're raising coming forward. And I think it's an important concern to take to heart as we consider navigating a provincial process um with these residents that doesn't necessarily consider these things as as serious as residents are asking us to consider them. Thank you. >> Thanks, Councelor A. Wilson. We're going to councelor McMegan. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Um I I was to speak at the mental health to start a mental health week. I I've jettisoned th those plans to come back to speak on this because I find this uh proposal so uh totally offensive. Um, it's as if rural lands don't matter. You know, they're uh if you're growing stuff on it and that's all you're doing, it's it's valueless. You know, it it and frankly, I think that's nonsense. Um, I long for a day when uh those who come with plans actually take the time to do their homework and not have to rely on uh on a a multiplicity of holding holding provisions in order to get into the door and and perhaps hope hoping it'll be turned down so they can go to the OOLT and get something that they wouldn't ever possibly get around this horseshoe given the abusive and intrusive nature of of the proposal. Um, this is embarrassing for us to even have to deal with this uh here given the history of the community and what's been going on. And and I'm saddened. I I really am saddened to uh to understand Greensville, to understand the struggles, to understand the protected water area that was fought for and and acknowledged, to understand the importance of the farm community and the relationship between thoughtful development and support of the farm community. All that stuff is like it can just be cast aside by somebody who's uh manufactured uh some economic hyperbole uh to justify something that in my opinion is totally unjustifiable. So I will not support this today. Do your homework. come back. If if you if you can answer the questions, legitimate questions that that our esteemed citizens have asked, then then we can have a thoughtful and honest discussion. But unless and until that happens, we shouldn't be dealing with this. Thanks. >> Okay, counselor. Thanks for those uh comments. At this time, I'm looking around the room for a mover and a seconder to approve the report recommendations. No, I thought we just put it on the floor from counselor. We put on the floor and counselor Okay. So, so listen, counselor Casar is not here. So, we need someone to step up and put it on the floor or we have an alternative. We can Okay. Okay. Councelor Wang has moved it and you're second, Councelor Nan. Thank you. So with that we can go to the escribe vote. >> recommendations. >> So this is on the report recommendations. What's going to happen is if you vote yes, you're supporting staff's recommendations with all the holding patterns. If you vote no, you're denying the application and it will move through the processes of whatever happens with that. And with that, the voices of the community have been heard. It's a 0 to10 defeat and the recommendations are now passed. >> So now, so now we require a vote to deny with reasons with planning reasons. >> Can I just ask, can you explain why we need that vote to deny if we've already just rejected it? because the planning act uh requires that when there's a refusal that there are planning I know I'm not using that wording correctly but there's planning reasons that go along with that denial. >> Okay. Thank you. And I'm going to turn it over to this. >> Oh, councelor A Wilson. >> If the venture slt had something ready that was fine. I was going to ask two questions. I was going to propose that the language I heard from residents was particularly the subwaterhed and the groundwater impacts. I also heard some residents bring up traffic analysis if that's a reason we'd like. But my main question is is this something that staff could bring back to council with polished language. Does this have to be done at this moment right now? Um in which case I'd be happy to let staff maybe propose some language based on what they've heard today and we could do that in a more professional matter than on the floor. >> Okay. Okay. So, we're going to go to um chief planner on that. >> Uh through the chair to the counselor. Um considering what has been um raised today, I could suggest initially two reasons. One that the scale of the commercial development cannot be supported. And secondly, issues such as storm water management design, hydro and hydrogeeology have not been satisfactoriily addressed to ensure there are no impacts and and should be addressed before development occurs. >> I I nodded but happy to give a verbal affirmative if that works with other folks in the room. I think that does encapsulate what we heard from folks and does encapsulate what's been mentioned in the debate personally. address. >> Okay. So, we're going to have a mover and seconder for the denial. And we're going to go to councelor A. Wilson. Councelor McMakin. Um, let's just get our votes straight here. If we vote yes to the denial, we're supporting the denial. If we vote no to the denial, we are not supporting the denial. Thank you. Yes. Is in favor of denial. >> Vote is up. Okay, that carries 10 to zero and that completes 8.1. At this time, it's uh 11:50. We're going to break for lunch until 12:30. Thank you for your time today. Thank you to the delegates. Thank you to the proponents that put forth their applications. And thank you to staff. Thank you. We're late due to a few technical difficulties getting back online. We're at 8.2 peed 24140C. Recommendation to designate the Melville Park West Heritage Conservation District under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act in Ward 13. Does the committee wish to see the staff presentation? >> Councelor A. Wilson, it's in your hands. >> I I've reviewed the presentation ahead of time, so if committee would like to, I think it's a helpful overview of what a conservation district is generally, but I have sight specific questions, not general questions, so I don't I don't need it. >> Perfect. Okay. So, basically what I'm seeing is there's no wish to see that presentation. So, may I have a mover and a second to wave the staff presentation? We'll go with councelor A. Wilson and we'll go with councelor Cretch to wave the presentation. Indicate your hand vote now. Hands up to wave the presentation. Councelor Pauls. Thank you. Good stuff. Okay, that was defeated or that was carried. Sorry. Here we are. Something happened there. I shouldn't be calling out councelor Pauly. Councelor Paulet. Sorry about that. Are there any members of the public? Okay, so may I have a mover and seconder to receive and Okay, so we wave that now at this. Are there any members of the public? So I'm just kind of >> Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting now? Not seeing any. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? And finally, are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? And not seeing anyone raise their hand or get up to speak. May I have a mover or seconder that there were no public submissions received regarding this matter and that the meeting be closed. Councelor Wang, Councelor A. Wilson, um please indicate your escribe vote now. It's coming up always. There it is. It's Okay, that carries 12 to zero. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the report recommendations? Councelor A. Wilson, Councelor Kretch. Okay, at this time, are there any comments or questions to staff? And we'll let the list populate, but I do see councelor A. Wilson wishes to speak. Go ahead, councelor. >> Thank you. Uh through you, chair. I think just I'll start with a process question or two and if I have to go on a second time after process, happy to. But just on process, uh appendix E is an objection letter for residents um are opposed. I'm wondering if staff could comment uh procedurally, what are the next steps or the implications of that? So as we move forward through a very kind of formal heritage process just what does what can they discuss a little bit about how does appendix E relate to that and what are the next steps in this process. >> Okay so you're looking for basically a little bit of the road map ahead. >> Thank you. Go ahead >> through the chair Alyssa Golden Cultural Heritage Program lead. I'll also note that we do have our consultants from MHBC on the line uh Dan and Nick who are also available to assist with any questions that the committee might have. Um, so if approved by council, uh, a the formal heritage conservation district plan will be adopted and a bylaw will be passed to designate the new district. Uh, staff will then be required to serve notice of passing of the bylaw on all of the affected property owners as well as the Ontario Heritage Trust and public notice of that bylaw passing as well. And that initiates a 30-day objection period. Any appeals that we receive would go to the Ontario Land Tribunal for consideration. Uh, as the councelor noted, we did receive one objection letter uh signed by four separate property owners within the district. Um, so they would be able to appeal because they did provide that notice in advance of this public meeting. Um, and we would uh I guess follow the standard process in terms of the Ontario land tribunal appeal in terms of the merits of the appeal and then whether that proceeds to a hearing. Counselor, >> thank you. Um, I know this was included briefly in the presentation. Would staff be able to characterize uh some of the general themes they had from public consultation received over this? I know this appendix E starts with some of the residents who were opposed. Uh there's been throughout the appendices maybe conversation about how we can ensure that trees are protected, solar panels go in. So some comments about climate sustainability um in how that works in the district, but could staff maybe at a high level talk about what was the public's reception to the process? Um were there any kind of highle themes that came out? >> Yeah, through the chair. Um so the consultation on this overall project has been a number of years. started with the heritage conservation district study uh started in earnest in 2023 and then moved on to the plan phase which we're currently wrapping up. Uh throughout that process generally the public open houses and online surveys as well as just general call for input has been generally supportive. Um there is the one objection letter that was mentioned. Um and then in terms of some of the feedback at the plan stage in terms of the the policies and guidelines themselves that would be proposed to be in the plan and help guide change within the district. There were a number of um comments and questions ensuring that the scope of those guidelines and policies are appropriate. Some of the questions were around ensuring that there's um policies that help ensure the retention of mature trees. So that's spoken to in appendix D that the counselor mentioned. Um, there were also some specific questions about clarifying what is exempt or does not require a heritage permit. This is our first new proposed heritage conservation district since the Ontario Heritage Act was amended. All of our existing seven districts don't have that provision. So, it's really great to be able to include that within the plan policies and there were some wonderful comments from uh residents and property owners to clarify those exemptions. Um, so the appendix D comment response matrix speaks to some of those. uh and those were very helpful in terms of refining the final plan that's in front of you today. >> Thank you. Um last question for me is I think if you're just able to characterize some of those questions um broadly seeking as the community I mean I think I'll just say staff have been so many public meetings and consultations on this event. Um but I think just being able to generally speaking I know there's always concerns with heritage process about how does this impact me and my property. We have appendix E. I think those are very legitimate concerns from the property owners about how they're going to be impacted and what their concerns are in this process. But generally speaking, um there's been hundreds of conversations. Uh staff are bringing this forward with a positive recommendation. Has the community been broadly seeking supportive of a like of a community designation like this as opposed to the individual designation approach? This is a bit of a new process. Um what has staff's experience been with the community overall? through the chair. I would say in terms of all the public engagement we've conducted as a part of this overall project, it's been primarily positive. Um, as you know, when we're dealing with individual property designations, we're dealing with just that person's property and that can often be a more challenging conversation in terms of sort of an individual designation. Um, the approach for a heritage conservation district is more broad. Um, it does just look at exterior alterations to the landscape, to buildings, additions, new construction, and it applies to everyone within the proposed district. It does differentiate between properties that have been identified as contributing to heritage value and ones that aren't. So, there's a reasonable scope and expectation of the types of um alterations and changes uh that are recommended to be um that are supportable within the district. And that kind of approach uh through this first new Hish conservation district in the last 20 years um staff found to be quite positive in terms of um policies applying to everyone and there being a consistent expectation for all of the property owners within the proposed district. >> Thank you. I really appreciate staff's uh ex like a lot of work has gone into consulting the community and being with the community and explaining these changes. Um, I understand that not everyone is completely supportive and we may get some official appeals throughout this process, but I'd say I I echo the comments just made there and I think there's been a lot of work done by staff to answer questions along the way and really supportive of the work they've done because this is a new process the city's undergoing and going slowly and going with a lot of collaboration and communication um is certainly something I've seen from heritage staff. So, a lot of thanks to them on this file. >> Duly noted, councelor A. Wilson. Thank you. and we're going to go to Councelor Tammy Wang. >> Thank you. Uh I also echo the fact that you can see the amount of work that staff have put into this uh program. So I'm also thankful to see this kind of come to a bit of a fruition. Just a question around the designation area. Um putting on my ECD hat. We have these community improvement seas and sepas go through a review every 5 years. the incentive programs kind of change according to how the the area kind of changes. Um the this designation area would it be similar to a sepha in that regard where it we would potentially take a look at it every 5 10 years for example because I do recognize that it's heritage but um how do we how do we set up for success? I think that if the incentive programs are geared towards that financial assistance aspect of it for the house or for the the built form um do we do any type of like feedback mechanism or some sort of evaluation through the chair. Uh great question. I will say that our existing seven heritage conservation districts uh with the exception of one have not been reviewed since they've been implemented. Now, policy frameworks have changed and been revised over the years. There was an initiative to review one of our existing heritage conservation districts a few years ago. Um, but we've seen sort of sequential provincial legislative changes since then. So, that's been somewhat put on hold while we wait to see where things will land with that. Um, it's not a bad idea to review the effectiveness of our conservation districts. It's not something that we currently have within our work plan or long-term strategy. I will note though there have been um initiatives more broadly across the province in terms of evaluating the effectiveness and satisfaction levels of property owners in heritage conservation districts. In particular um um a study called heritage conservation districts work out of University of Waterl Heritage Resources Center and that looked comprehensively at all heritage conser conservation districts in Ontario and found very positive sort of satisfaction levels. Um so in the absence of I guess a direct request to review um a particular heritage conservation district, we would be looking for any specific issues that might arise from property owners and take those into account. Um to date that isn't something that we've had with the exception of that one district in St. Clara that there was some direction to review. Um, and just to speak to sort of the SEAR related connection when it comes to financial incentives. Um, just noting that our designated heritage properties um, now have our two revised um, financial incentive programs. We have our heritage re revitalization grant and our heritage revitalization loan programs. So, those would apply to all the contributing properties within this proposed new district. >> Okay. Thank you for that. I'm just thinking about how um it's very different sort of situation because we're talking about development charges for new builds and that sort of thing, but it's it is quite expensive to continue to keep up um to a certain extent um the heritage value of different homes. So, that's where I was just kind of wondering what our incentive structure kind of looks like. And that's not something I want to explore today, but it was just one of those uh musings when I was thinking about this. Uh thank you for that. And then moving forward beyond this designation and next what are the potential um is there more opportunity to add on to this designated area or this is it is what it is that outline is where it is and that's it. >> Through the chair. Um yes. So as a part of the legislative process to designate a new heritage conservation district, there's two phases. The first phase was the study phase and that is where um a larger study area was evaluated and um the historical value and significance of that area and the heritage features and attributes that contribute to that value were identified and the boundary was defined at the study stage and then that would progress to the now planned stage after council approved the findings of the study and the proposed boundary. So that boundary is a defined boundary that would not be expected to change unless a wholesale a whole scale review of the entire district was done. Um there is the potential to amend existing districts generally and maybe Dan or Nick from MHBC might have a follow-up response but um best practice wise it's usually good to designate a new district rather than amend and open an existing district because you are opening it up to potential appeals from an area that you already have protected. Um so as a great example uh there is an existing heritage conservation district just east of this one. So that district was not expanded. A new district study was conducted. Um different significance uh values heritage values and significance were identified different heritage attributes. So they really are two defined separate areas that are protected. Um and I'm not sure if Dan or Nick have anything to to add on that regard >> through the chair. No, I think Alyssa, you you answered that question very thoroughly. Uh, I would agree with you. >> Okay, thank you. Those are all my questions. >> Okay, thank you. And I'm not seeing any other people populate the list. We've had our mover who is A Wilson and our seconder who is Cretch. And we will indicate our Eastrobe vote now. Thank you. >> Okay, that carries 12 to zero. We're on to items for consideration. 9.1 PEED25248 comprehensive neighborhood plans review status update citywide. Does the committee wish to see staff presentation? I'm looking around. Nobody's engaging in eye contact. A few are actually. So, we are going to see the staff presentation. Come on down. And I think this is Dimmitri Karena. And just correct me if I pronounced that wrong. Okay, thank you Demetri. Okay. Thank you, chair, members of planning committee, and those in attendance. Today, I will be presenting staff report PD25248A, which is a status update to the neighborhood plans review. Today's presentation is an update in response to direction given by planning committee during the November 14th, 2025 meeting in which staff were directed to provide a complete communication and public engagement plan and provide planning committee with copies of all neighborhood plans. Some previously non-digitized maps have been digitized in color format for easier readability. As a reminder, staff report PV25248 provided an overview of the neighborhood plans review process and recommended initiating public consultation on the draft review criteria. As a reminder, as a reminder, these are the proposed set of criteria that we are looking to consult on. So historic context, official plan and secondary plan policy alignment um and plan road network. And the last criteria is special characteristics which would be looking at whether other planning documents or city initiatives and strategies address planning for a given neighborhood. Uh, as a quick refresher, neighborhood plans are tertiary level documents at the neighborhood scale that were developed from the late 1960s to the early 1990s in the former municipalities of Hamilton, Dundas, and Stony Creek. They are usually a standalone map but sometimes accomp accompanied by a text document containing details on local demographics, the consultation process for the plan, direction and actions for implementation on matters related to property standards, traffic, local environmental concerns, social programs, recreation and crime. While they do while they do not form part of the urban Hamilton official plan, they are referred to in parkland policies and an urban area general provisions as well as in chapter F implementation. Neighborhood plans can be implemented through the official plan, including secondary plans, through zoning bylaws, and through other strategies and initiatives. As part of the proposed public engagement and communication plan, we have set out the following communication goals. Uh to provide a clear understanding of what neighborhood plans are to inform the public about the role of neighborhood plans within their land use planning framework. Explain the impact of provincial and federal housing initiatives on traditional residential neighborhoods uh land use policies and how current neighborhood plans are not consistent with recent changes introduced to the urban Hamilton official plan. We will be explaining why it is important to review the neighborhood plans, explain the rationale for the proposed criteria, and clearly identify how input will be used in the decision-making process. Uh, and we will be communicating the following key messages on screen. Um, so just for the sake of time, I'll quickly read over them. Neighborhood plans are older planning documents. They are not part of the official plan, but are still used for when reviewing development. Many neighborhood plans are more restrictive than current land use policies in the official plan and zoning. In some cases, a proposal may meet may meet current zoning rules, but still require a neighborhood plan amendment, adding extra steps and complexity. The city is launching a comprehensive review to determine which plans should be kept and updated and which should be removed. The city is consulting with the public on a proposed set of criteria to be used in evaluating whether to retain an update or to repeal a neighborhood plan. And on screen are the proposed target audience, communication and engagement methods for the proposed public uh engagement. So we would be targeting residents, landowners, counselors, neighborhood associations, the development industry and business improvement areas. Our communication channels would be the city social media uh channels, Hamilton spectator, community partner mailing list, city, the city builders group, counselor outreach channels, and we would be using in-person public information centers as well as a virtual community meeting and an engaged Hamilton page for the project. Uh in terms of next steps, uh this uh on screen is the proposed timeline for the engagement. In a given direction, staff would begin preparing for public consultation, holding in-person and virtual engagement sessions during quarter 2 of 2026, referred to as phase one. And we would be incorporating feedback into a set of draft recommendations to be recirculated for public comment in quarter 1 of 2027, referred to as phase 2. We are targeting to have final recommendations provided to planning committee in quarter 2 of 2027. Um, so in summary, staff are recommending that a the planning division staff be directed to consult with community partners and the public on the draft criteria for evaluating existing neighborhood plans as contained in appendix 8 to report PD25248, the original staff report on the matter. and B that planning division staff be directed to report back to planning committee with the results of the consultation the final criteria for evaluating existing neighborhood plans and the results of a preliminary review of the neighborhood plans against the criteria. Thank you for listening uh to my presentation. I'll be happy to take any questions. >> Thanks Demetri. And there are a number of counselors who will be asking you some questions. We'll start off with two counselor Cameron Gretch. Thanks. I'd like to use an example of one of the maps here to ask a couple questions specifically. It's for the Duran neighborhood. And so it looks like based on some records the Duran neighborhood has actually the plan here that says 1973, they actually have a 1987 plan that was approved by council somewhere. And so at some point we'll send that information over to you folks. You can look at it and make sure it's updated. But I noticed when you had census data on the map, it said 2001 or 2006 was when the population data was listed for those. Why didn't you go all the way to 2021 and put the census data for 2021 there? >> Um, I'd take it to the bench for that one. >> Sure. >> The point I guess is you want to repeat the question about jumping from 2002 to 2021. Is that your question? >> The population data on the map is really outdated. We have it on that map specifically. It says it lists 2001 and 2006, but we have data on the city's website that's later than that, 2021 and 2022. So, why wouldn't we include that information there? >> Perfect. >> Hi, uh Melanie Fam, uh community planning program lead and sustainable communities. Um through the chair, u most of these maps, they don't uh normally get updated unless there's a change uh approved by council for property. Um so whatever's on there would be essentially um what was there uh at the last time of any change. >> Okay. Thanks. So that's why this current population data is not there for that. I was just trying to understand the the timing, right? You have 1973 map, but we have 2006 census data. So I was trying to understand how that worked. Thank you. That's helpful. My basic understanding about this is they could be a useful tool. That's my general understanding. They could be a useful tool if they were kept up to date, modernized, and used regularly, but otherwise they have no real planning power or effect. Is that a generally reasonable understanding? Uh, yes, that's correct. They're not part they're not an instrument granted to municipalities like secondary plans. They're extra tertiary level document that could be used to coordinate land uses. My only real question I guess then is about their potential future use. One thing I think that is very difficult for neighborhoods and neighbors in neighborhoods and as a place with the most neighborhood associations that are active is more too. I get questions semiconstantly at neighborhood association meetings about things with respect to land use planning. One of the things I understand these maps to be able to do if they were updated to 2026 would be able to show someone just their neighborhood and just the planning uh things, instruments and things that are happening in their neighborhood to give them a sense of how it applies there. Otherwise, they're asked to go to several secondary plans, official plans, other plans, then try and look for their neighborhood in there and make some understanding of it. Is that a reasonable understanding of what the potential use of these things could be? uh through the chair. Uh yes, I think that that is a reasonable understanding. Um through this review process after uh finalizing the review criteria that we would use to evaluate neighborhood plans if a neighborhood plan uh is identified as worth keeping and updating, that updating process would be part of that um potential future use for the neighborhood plan. s such as as you mentioned coordinating and identifying all the other uh documents and strategies that might be relevant to a specific neighborhood at that level. Um as part of our proposed public engagement process, we would also be educating the public about the different city initiatives, strategies, and master plans that kind of work together to address planning in their in a given neighborhood. Um a lot of some of these plans talk about transportation. We have various transportation master plans. Uh some of them talk about property standards. We have property standard bylaws. So I think that's a great idea for future use of neighborhood plans is to make it easier for uh residents to understand what's going on in their neighborhood specifically. >> Since you mentioned it, I'll ask about engagement specifically. Just want to make sure you're really clear about what that looks like or what that might be. You're not going to be going to neighborhoods and sitting down with neighbors from neighborhoods and talking about them about planning their neighborhoods. That's not the activity. What is the activity? Because I think people think there's a neighborhood plan. We're going to do consultations about neighborhood plans. And I can see all 120 plus neighborhoods getting excited. Oh, great. The city's coming to my neighborhood. We're going to make a plan. Uh that's not the activity as far as I understand it. Could you explain what it is? >> Yeah. So the activity is educating the public about uh what are neighborhood plans, where did they come from and the need to update them uh or to uh look at the set of criteria and and u review neighborhood plans to either update them or repeal them and get the public involved in that process. Um, and to help kind of frame that, we would be there would be a education piece about the planning framework itself, official plans, secondary plans, zoning bylaws, master plans, other city strategies, how to how do they all work together to fill the role that neighborhood plans used to have um, when they were created. >> Okay, thanks. Those are my questions. I have comments later. >> Thank you, councelor. Next up, councelor M. Wilson. Thank you. And I'll I'll certainly take any guidance if these questions are better suited for the report. But on that, if I could begin where you ended. Um when I was first elected, uh we tried to do something called uh planning 101. And so we have a f a focus group of residents from uh throughout Ward One uh to digest and dissect the the planning act and how it's exercised. And it was through my experience that folks just really want to understand and have very immediate access to the plans that are informing their neighborhood. And um if my a little bit of discomfort I'm having is I really wish we would do that and that was the objective. Um because I I think um because of uh the significant change that the planning regime is undergoing across Ontario, the confidence of people that they have in the decisions is being undermined. And I think we have an obligation to start there as opposed to that kind of being um these are my words, not yours, a a side benefit. Um, so if I could ask in your research to date, have you been were you are you able to share with me any neighborhood plan that you believe has recently informed and affected a planning recommendation? Uh, yes. I just have to consult the list here. through the through the chair to the council. Perhaps I can assist a little bit. Um, and I may have to come back with more specifics, but I think the Sheldon neighborhood is a really good example, and if you're interested, it's on page 80 of 129 uh, in appendix C. um it's a neighborhood that's not completely built out yet and outlined a very specific road pattern. And so in terms of the usefulness of the of the plan, that's one in particular that staff refer to I in particular refer to fairly often when we receive inquiries. Um this neighborhood plan and some of the road pattern actually came up when staff brought forward the um most recent I think it was the mid-rise zoning as well. So it is they are useful tools. They do lay out uh planned road patterns which are not contained within the official plan and which are not contained in secondary plans and staff use that in order to evaluate um a proposal and what was the planned transportation and uh pedestrian function of that neighborhood. >> Thank you. If I may just seek further clarity on that and you're suggesting um that that would be helpful in that case and therefore would I be able to conclude that that's not a framework that would be informed by say a transportation master plan or an active trans excuse me active transportation plan that would set out the existing and the perceived future. Is that not where we would get the information from? uh through the chair to the councelor. Um I may ask director Mallaloy, but maybe before I turn to him, I would just say I mean when when I'm speaking of road patterns, I'm speaking of the local interior road pattern. So generally not evaluated at a high level through transportation assessments. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarity. Um uh could you just um could you help me understand I I don't know the status of it but I think we were apprised a number of meetings ago that the government of Ontario um indicated that it it may be eliminating secondary plans as a an intent to build more homes faster. So if could you speak to the status of that and if we're if they're going in that direction what might then even be the status of something that is not doesn't have any planning piece in an OP or zoning through the chair. Uh yeah, so through the chair um uh I'll refer to the bench for further comment, but I do believe the province has heard um that they might be walking back that concept of eliminating secondary plans, but um I'll turn it to the bench for more kale. >> Hi, uh through the chair. Yes. So there was an ERO posting last year that we had commented on as staff uh and had brought forward a report to planning committee on um which was looking at potential changes for the official plan framework. Um and one of the items that um we were asked to comment on was about potentially deleting uh secondary plans and area specific policies within official plans um and sight specific policies. We had uh raised some significant concerns in our comments on that last year. Um and this year um as part of the the bill 98 uh posting um and other erro postings uh that just got posted last month. Um there has been an update to that. Uh so we staff will be bringing forward a report in June on that. Um and uh we have staff level comments that have to be submitted by uh May 14th deadline. Um but essentially uh the the province has now uh as Dimmitri noted walked back that initial um suggestion that secondary plans may be deleted. um they're still asking some questions about um developing a framework for secondary planning of where it should be used and um some guidance around it. Um so that's what our comments will be focused on. Uh but at this point they've they've walked back that and they are um acknowledging that secondary plans are a very important tool um and that there's not an intention to get rid of them at this time. Thank you. And my final question is and it may be more appropriate for the report. I think this committee has been is understanding that we need to get houses built and um we're trying to encourage within our own might how to do that. So, how would how are you going to address the idea or the proposal that just this is just adding another layer of maybe false protection or at least another layer in which developers are are going to have to um attend to? Those are my questions. Thank you. Uh so through the chair um so part of what initiated this uh review of neighborhood plans was a uh direction given uh to staff for in 2024 from staff report PD22154A uh which uh which expanded permitted uses um which was looking to expand permitted uses in neighborhood plans as part of the lowdensity residential zone project. So this is seen as an incremental step to um implementing that and involving the public and letting them know how we are expanding uh residential options within their neighborhoods. Currently neighborhood plans do pose a barrier to that. So in this review uh we would be looking at first um working with the public to finalize a set of review criteria for transparency purposes and then apply that criteria to repeal neighborhood plans and retain and update those that might be crucial to keep such as ones that have a local road network shown on their maps that aren't shown in other documents. Thanks, Demetri, and thank you, councelor. Uh, councelor Nan. >> Thank you, chair. Thank you for the overview. Um, just a couple of quick questions. Um, in one of the correspondences, the second one that is on this item today, uh, there's a note by the resident that neighborhood plans, building off of where councelor Wilson left off, um, are influencing development outcomes in a manner that impacts housing delivery. according to this correspondence introduces additional timelines and uncertainty and may impose financial burden on applicants through amendments related um processes and fees. Could staff comment on on those points and um how the plan going forward around neighborhood plans um either address these concerns, mitigate these concerns or continue these concerns. So through the chair um certainly uh um so to clarify uh typically what happens with the neighborhood plans amendment is that it's done in conjunction with a zoning bylaw amendment. Uh in our review in updating these neighborhood plan maps to get them digitized and um accurate up to date based on amendments that have happened uh over the years. Uh this seems to be almost always the case. I think there might have been like four instances where um in and we're talking about like since 2007 where only a neighborhood plan amendment might have been needed. Uh we can't conf uh it's a single-digit number under five for sure. Um, and so this process that we're looking to engage with in the public would uh update neighborhood plans that we identify as worth retaining so that they're in alignment with the urban Hamilton official plan and zoning bylaws that allow for uh more flexible residential uses. >> Thank you. Um, and so the goal I just maybe I need clarity on the goal of the outcome of the public engagement. So cuz what's proposed here is quite robust and my concern is that you know there's already a lack of public awareness of all of the land use planning mechanisms and processes that exist in a municipality. And then on top of it we're adding clarity around hey there's this tool from 50 60 years ago that we're seeking to update uh which doesn't necessarily have authority because it's not a statutory tool. It's a planning tool. I'm just concerned that we're adding more confusion to the pot. And I appreciate what you said earlier that the goal here is to create that clarity for those who participate in the program. But maybe if you could just outline the outcomes that you're seeking from the public in this process because I'm concerned about public fatigue in terms of engaging them on so many things when there's so little um awareness of all the different planning tools. >> Okay. So through the chair certainly. Um so in terms of outcome uh this process is very much driven by uh council's goal around transparency and getting the public involved in these decision making processes um due to to the age of these neighborhood plans. I can't comment on how um inclusive they were when they were created, >> but um this uh public consultation process that we're proposing would is is a in a way a remedy to that. Um I I'll also turn it to the bench to comment more on the outcomes of this public engagement >> uh through the chair to the counselor. I think um one of the key things that Dimmitri mentioned was um it's more education and helping people understand um as you said the planning 101 um elements of how those different plans work together um and what role neighborhood plans have within that. Um and I think um so part of the outcome will be uh just get getting that understanding and then within that um trying to understand from people whether the the criteria and the way that we're reviewing the plans makes sense to them. Um if there's things that we're missing that we should be considering. Um and in terms of applying the criteria, um are there things that are more important than others that we should be prioritizing or um giving a heavier weight to in terms of importance? Um and then that will feed into our uh subsequent review of each neighborhood plan where we we'll be taking a look at that criteria against the neighborhood plan and then making a recommendation about um is it worth it to keep? Are there specific things that uh maybe provide guidance that are outside of other plans? Um and if so, we'll we'll look at what are the updates then that we would need to make um to reflect that. And then um in terms of plans that may may not be so useful anymore um is if we apply the criteria um would be would we be recommending that um those plans be repealed? >> Thank you. And then just to follow up on that one, so is is and I appreciate that the entire exercise is seeking to answer this question, but if staff could just um provide your pre-thought on it, uh what kind of circumstances could you anticipate that say a neighborhood plan is no longer useful? Is it that the points for the neighborhood needs are assessed and are already considered within a secondary plan for example? >> Uh yes. So I I would say that would be um one of the key considerations. Um maybe as another example, I would note that um some of the more suburban type plans were created when those areas were not built out. Um and they are now built built out and they're primarily um low-rise uh types of residential uses where we would now be expanding the types of uses that are allowed um within that area. Um, so if we're no longer differentiating between things um like uh street town houses and singles and uh semis in terms of the neighborhood plan, um there may not be a a use um for them in particular anymore. So um we'd be looking at those sorts of things as well. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you, counselor. I'm seeing councelor M. Wilson for a second time. Thank you. If I could just pick up to make sure I understood um that last point by staff is is it if our goal has been to provide um a a greater supply of housing and a greater choice of housing in more places so that we're not so segregated. ated in our city. Is it did you just submit that in the absence of doing that exercise were not able to realize um those goals through the chair uh through the chair to the counselor. Um, so right now as the neighborhood plans stand, they still show those distinctions between those low density uh different types of uses that we've we've now expanded. Um, so the the zoning is in place um based on the the residential zones project. >> Um, but our our neighborhood plans are now out of alignment with that. So if um we're keeping uh certain neighborhood plans, we would have to definitely update to reflect that range of uses that's now permitted in by the the lowdensity residential zones. >> Thank you. I I I just need to finish this off though. So we have updated our zoning. We are allow allowing for a greater type of uses, but the neighborhood plans I thought I heard you say um do not have any statutory effect. Um they couldn't be used in a in a in a tribunal for example or by this committee for planning grounds for a denial. So could I just get clarity on that whether that's a correct statement I've made or an incorrect statement please? to the chair to the councelor. The neighborhood plans are approved by council and while they not they do not form part of the official plan, there are still policies contained within the official plan that require um uh conformity or amendments to the neighborhood plan when there's a change. So, they do have status in terms of the official plan. They're just not part of the official plan. And what I would just add to what Miss Fam um indicated is they're not a um a hindrance and they don't um they don't specifically um direct development. Staff would generally not uh recommend denial on the basis of the neighborhood plan, but they are still referenced. And because staff still reference them, this is an opportunity to create that alignment to ensure that um the neighborhood plans are reflective of the current direction of the official plan that they are a little bit more broad in terms of use. So for example, some of the neighborhood plans will say single and double residential. >> Our our current designations go beyond just single and double. So we want to make sure that there's alignment but still recognizing that there's still a valuable tool that are utilized in the in the evaluation of development applications but we just want to make sure that there's alignment between the documents. >> You're pausing counselor in deep reflection. I'll um still not uh clear to me but thank you. >> Okay. Thank you councelor Kretch. Thanks. I think as the discussion has gone on, I had another question I wanted to ask about this because I think one of the things that's interesting or problematic about this is I think what you're saying is that there are like a vestigial kind of residual impact that some of these neighborhood plans have, right? There's a vestage of a road. There's this residual nature of something that used to exist before and in keeping some neighborhood plans, we're preserving the history of that that doesn't exist elsewhere. Though I assume we also could just incorporate the information that's vestigial or residual and put that in the actual other plans we have and eliminate neighborhood plans. It seems like the vast majority of the plans are outdated. They themselves would have to be updated with the other instruments we already have. And so if there's just a collection of a certain number of these plans that have information that's useful in them, why wouldn't we just take the information from those plans and put it with everything else instead of doing this backwards activity which seems like let's update all these neighborhood plans to conform to or repeal or not or keep some like and then we don't have a complete set and so on. This creates further confusion. So maybe the the director could answer that question >> through the chair. I'll try to to clarify. So the way that that I look at this and the way that we've looked at this is we recognize that there are some plans that are perhaps not required anymore and some that are of value and importance. The purpose of this exercise is not to make that decision just yet. It's to determine how how and under what criteria we would use to evaluate these the need for these neighborhood plans. At the end of the day, the decision may ultimately be as as you've indicated, that could be a recommendation to say we don't they shouldn't stand, they should be repealed and the but the recommendations should be reflected through OP policy or some other mechanism. It's so that may be the outcome, but this process is to determine what criteria are we going to use um to be able to evaluate and make those decisions. >> Okay. Okay. And thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding on that. I I appreciate it very much. I misunderstood part of the exercise. So things like having future plans or future neighborhood plans for every neighborhood because we have that PDF on the city's website if everyone's not familiar with it of all the neighborhoods across the entire city and it's just a PDF with a bunch of squares on it and there's no detail there. And the thing I hear from neighborhoods a lot is it'd be great if we had a really up-to-date comprehensive look at our neighborhood and what those planning instruments have. So if you get feedback from neighborhoods about that through the consultation, you might bring that back here for the discussion, but we're not making a decision about what that what happens today. So I can leave that. Thank you very much. >> Yeah. And just so from my thinking as the chair here, we're ensuring that there's public participation and it's transparent as we make these decisions about the um neighborhood plans. And they're also trying to bring it in alignment with current land use policies so that they aren't outdated. So whether or not we utilize them down the road or not, I think the important part is that we as a council and as a committee here have always encouraged public participation and transparency and I think that's what this is seeking to do. If I can speak on behalf of staff. Um, okay. So at that point, Dimmitri. Oh, sorry. Third time. Councelor M. Wilson. >> Yeah. No, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be difficult about this, but um uh land use policy and practice has often been infused with bias um in large measure due to privilege. So, um, when we're doing public consultation, could you speak a little bit to how we're going to perhaps address um the capacity of different people to engage in in this depending on how they live and where they live. And um that we're not going to be using it as any kind of thing in which we're going to further seek to, you know, How shall I say uh in in enable exclusion through the chair? >> Yeah. So through the chair um this pro this our proposed public consultation process is looking to remedy some of those past wrongs. Uh in our engagement strategy there's essentially three streams of engagement. We have the in-person uh engagement that we would be doing. There would be three of them um to geographically cover the areas where neighborhood plans exist. There would be a virtual engagement for those who cannot attend the inerson engagement and there would be a Hamilton uh engage Hamilton page for people to also engage at their leisure. Um we have done preliminary work to look at the different uh wards within uh in which neighborhood plan areas are located in to look at the demographics and the percent of um uh marginalized groups uh as compared to the city averages uh with within those words. Um as part so so as part of this process we would be we have those three channels to consult with people. Um and uh there has been some discussion with the public engagement office about the relevance perhaps of the accessibility committee in in neighborhood plan planning. But um as mentioned by this committee uh these plans don't have much legis legislative authority. So uh I I can't comment to the extent that they can create future exclusion and we are really doing this exercise to update the neighborhood plans so that they're in line in alignment with the more inclusive policies that are now in effect through zoning and the urban Hamilton official plan. Um uh if there's anything else that the bench could add to that comment, um uh I open it up, but um those are my thoughts on the matter. >> Thank you. I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. >> Okay, I think that ends it for now and and basically Dimmitri, great job up there. Thank you. Um we're going to have a mover and secondary to receive that staff presentation. I'm going to go with councelor Cooper and councelor M. Wilson. Is that okay? and have a hand vote now, please, to receive the staff presentation. Okay, thank you. That passes. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the recommendations report and receive the written submissions? Councelor Wang, thank you. Councelor Paul's, is there any discussion on item 9.1? Populate that list now if you're I know we exhausted it pretty much. Councelor Wang, thank you for answering the call. >> Um, I'm uh I'm torn on this because it just kind of feels like from our conversation that this is not necessarily a statutory tool. Um, I know that it is helpful in some instances, but not in most. Um, in Ward 4, there are only five neighborhood plans of which they are in the very established urban neighborhoods that don't at all will not see any type of new development or anything like that. So, for me, the Ward 4, there's no value in doing that engagement in W 4. Um, so this is where I'm I'm extremely torn chair on this. uh this is a significant amount of staff time and resources to go out to educate a public again in Ward 4 where we will not see any value or benefit in this work. So um for me I think I'm going to be voting this down because there's no reason I don't see a value or benefit for W4 residents here. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Wang. Any other comments? Okay, we have our mover and seconder. >> Well, if there's no more discussion, let's indicate whether escribe vote now whether we support this ongoing process or not. >> Oh, do you do you have something to say, Councelor Bey? We can always take it down. Okay, Councelor Bey has a question for staff and I'm going to allow it. >> Councelor Bey, >> thank you for your indulgence, Chair, and I apologize to members. Um, I would like to just get uh an indication. Um, and maybe I missed it. It seems that there may be an appetite around the table to perhaps decline the recommendation here and not continue forward. And I'm trying to understand what happens next. Should this be the direction from this body? Uh what would staff do next? Where would this lead us? Uh I think that that's an important uh key consideration before our votes are registered. >> Great question. Go ahead. >> Uh through the chair to the councelor. I would um suggest that an alternative would need to be moved. The reality is staff, the neighborhood plans need to be updated or um repealed. There needs to be some action taken because as they stand in some cases they are not up to date. So the alternatives lay out options that exclude the public consultation um that we you know that uh staff would just be directed to amend the neighborhood plans to comply with the official plan. So it would be more of a staff level exercise and developing our own criteria to do that evaluation as opposed to engaging with the community. But there needs to be some direction in terms of how how do we proceed with these neighborhood plans? >> Are you finished councelor bey? >> Thank you. So um in the in the absence of that direction then um you there well there is no direction. So staff just kind of stop and await further direction from this body. And so um I'm not sure if we've considered moving an alternative or something like that. I I'm seeing some nods from across the table. So I'll seed the floor to uh perhaps one of the other counselors that have some idea of where we may go as an outcome of those. Thank you. >> And before we go there, I'm going to Well, I saw councelor Clark had his hand up. Okay. So, we go to councelor Wilson. >> Councelor M. Wilson. Uh thank you to councelor Bey for um his question um on the methodology and to councelor Wang's point about um um established neighborhoods that to use the example that the chief planner was uh brought to the the table all the road networks are fully established. Was there any consideration in your methodology of doing a preliminary um assessment of of in those very urban places perhaps we know with great certainty uh that the neighborhood plan is um is dated and in its present circumstance and given the circumstances just wouldn't make sense to have um and then to perhaps divert your efforts to I'm all in for the planning education piece and for delivering a product which enables people to see their neighborhood and the active plans that are that are active there. But it just seems like that is a product at the very end as opposed to um something perhaps that could be done in another way, shape or form andor the methodology of all the neighborhood plans could be further called. Just that's my question on the methodology. Thank you. >> Uh through the chair to the counselor. Um I believe in the original report and staff have done a like a high level preliminary evaluation. There were some I say draft criteria that have been established. Um and a completion of a neighborhood I would say would be one of one of those criteria that a neighborhood could be evaluated against. Um so yes I mean that that work has been done to a certain extent. Um it the the purpose of this was to ensure that you know all the criteria would be identified. Um but certainly staff have done a prelim preliminary review and could do that review um in terms of the criteria that we have um and then be able to report back to council on that. >> Thank you counselor. Um, we're going to go to first time speaker on this, councelor Critch. >> Well, probably like 11th time speaker, but anyway. Um, kidding. I want to put number two as the option here, the alternative. And I want to speak to why that is based on the alternatives in front of us. Number one seems like what would happen is if we did that, then staff would not be able to align the current official plan policies or other council approved plans and strategies with neighborhood plans. So, it would be kind of a mess. basically we'd be left with a bunch of things that um weren't aligned with currently. Option two, which I think makes the most sense is that um it allows for a public process but just not a public process in every single plan. So where there are secondary plans already, right, or where there are areas where there are already more mature instruments, I guess is a way of putting it. We wouldn't be looking at those specific plans. What would be left would be. So my question staff is that my basic understanding is if we went with option two, we would take the plans out of there that already have secondary plans that are way outdated. We'd be left with a group of plans to consult on that would would more meaningfully require some public impact and some updates. Is that right? >> Uh through the chair, yes, that was the intent of that second alternative. >> I think that's what I'm hearing my colleague saying basically is we don't want to do a ton of extra work and be asking the public to go and consult on things that have no meaning. This would allow staff to go ahead update those plans to meet the secondary plans, take those out out that we don't need, and then engage in the ones where there's meaningful work to be done. So, I'm going to put that forward and probably need a secondary, but that's seemingly will solve. And councelor Bey's is going to second solve the problem we're all having. >> We're going to go to councelor clerk first and then we'll come to you. Uh, councelor clerk, thank you for your patience. You're up now. >> Um, my pleasure, chair. Um, so I I'll procedurally I'll be speaking to the amendment now and I agree with councelor Cretch's um observations. I can speak specifically to W nine. uh our ward is predominantly planned through secondary planning processes. So what that means is every neighborhood that we have, every development that has been approved over the years went through a secondary planning process which had um broad public consultation on that secondary planning process. the neighborhood plans introduces something that is a bit confusing to people um because it is not a statutoily required uh process um and I think if we're reviewing secondary plans uh we can provide statutoal prescribed processes that really become a part of the official plan. I'm still a little bit confused on even the concept of a neighborhood plan given that it really does not have any authority um in law. And so I think what councelor Cretch is proposing is the the the middle ground. And as for the concern from staff that it would circumvent wholesome public engagement, I would suggest that we're not at the point where you want to have that wholesome public engagement. We may be after we have this uh review done. Um but I don't think going out to the public to engage them. I think that is going to confuse many members of the public as to what a neighborhood plan is and why are we doing it if we already have secondary plans in my community. And given that the province has changed the rules with regards to uh applications that are coming forward and whether or not they comply with the neighborhood character, it kind of seems like the neighborhood plans have been thrown out the window by the government of Ontario. So those are my thoughts. I think item two would make sense and uh I would support that at council. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor Clark. We're going to go to counselor weighing for some procedural messaging. >> I think that since I was the person that put it on the floor, so I think I will withdraw my um my motion and whatever. >> Consider it withdrawn. Uh councelor Cretz, you have anything to put forward? At the sake of repetition, alternative to seconded by councelor Bey. >> Okay. Thank you, councelor Bey. So at this point, now that we have some direction for staff, um please indicate is it. >> Hold on a sec. >> Councelor A. Wilson, sorry. Go ahead. >> Sorry, but I hope this is a simple question. Chair, could staff just explain what's going to happen to the neighborhood plans in areas where there's not a secondary plan under alternative 2. Do they still need updating? It just seems like that gets the the plans fixed where we want to update them. Is this also just effectively walking away from those other plan? I'm just looking for clarity on what's happening with those ones where there's not a corresponding secondary plan >> uh through the chair to the counselor. Um I think the intent of alternative 2 would be um a immediate repeal of all the plans that are within secondary plan areas. Um but then the continuation with this engagement plan for any of the remaining sec or neighborhood plans, excuse me. >> Thank you. That wasn't clear to me whether the engagement continued or not. So that I appreciate that being clarified. >> Okay. At this point, I'm not seeing anybody else. We have an I guess we have an alternative number two on the floor. There's no more discussion. Please indicate your escribe vote now. That's great. 12 to zero. Thank you. Thank you to councelor Bey for his pausing the momentum of the meeting to have sober second thoughts. Okay, I think we're on to 9.2 2 PED26095 request for direction to proceed with appeal of committee adjustment decision to approve consent to sever application B25 087 for lands located at 117 Lowden and Avenue in Ancaster. This is in W 12. So may I have a mover and secondary to put it on the floor. Thank you and I was coming to you councelor Casar. I'm very conscientious of people's wards and where things happen. Okay. And we'll have a seconder. Councelor Cooper and anyone wishing to speak to this item? Councelor Casar's first up. >> Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I'm supportive of the staff recommendation here and just thought it might be good to get on the public record for staff to express the reason for uh the recommendation to appeal and specifically the three conditions that were not um that were not required by the COA for this application and why those conditions are important to staff. Thank you. staff is gathering as you wait at home with baited breath for the answers. Here we go. >> Thank you. Identify yourself and share your information. >> I was going to say through the chair. That's the quickest I've done stairs in a long time. Uh Jennifer Katarino, area planning manager for the West Development team. Um and hopefully councelor Kazar will answer your question. Um the reason for the appeal is the lands have recently been zoned uh R2 in Ancaster through the low density residential work that has happened. They were previously zoned um in the ER zone. Sorry, the stairs got to me. Um previously zoned ER zone in Ancaster and there's a bit of history in the ER zones with in Ancaster in terms of severances. So there was a number of concerns regarding lot drainage and grading storm water um their flooding concerns. So when the zone changed to R2 um our staff still consider those grading and drainage issues on the properties when people consider consent applications. So in this instance, development engineering staff uh requested that the conditions that we pre previously would have requested when a consent application happened in this part of Ancaster be applied. Um the committee of adjustment did not apply those to the approval. So it's important for us as staff to ensure that the grading and drainage uh can be accommodated um for the new house. So we think it's imperative that we proceed um to address those concerns and to ensure that the applicant will provide development engineering with the necessary studies to ensure that um drainage can can happen on the site. >> Okay. Thank you councelor Cooper. >> Thank you chair. Just following up what do we know what the rationale was from the committee of adjustment >> uh through the chair I can't speak for the committee I can just speak to the flavor of the meeting >> okay >> um and so the conversation that that sort of happened um the applicant requested that the conditions be removed uh they did note that through the building permit process a grading plan is typically required when you get a building permit um and I believe the committee of adjustment and thought that that was adequate in order to proceed. Um, so I I think that's where they landed. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair. >> No more questions. Not seeing any more questions. I guess the mover and the second to approve the recommendations. Councelor Casar and Councelor Cooper, please indicate your escribe vote now. It was up and it was fast uncharacteristically. That carries 12 to zero. Item 9.3 has been deferred. We're on to item 9.4, HMHC 260004, Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee minutes dated April 17th, 2026. May I have a mover and secondary, Councelor Kretch and councelor Casar, to approve the recommendations that are contained in the report. And are there any discussions at this time? Not seeing any. Okay. Please indicate your escribe vote now. >> We're We're good. We're good. That one moved rather fast, so no apologies necessary. I'm still waiting. It is up now. >> The heritage committee minutes have been as we wait. I'm gonna say he's going to make >> Okay, working out the robots. We have it at 12 to zero. Thank you. The municipal heritage minutes carried. We are on to motions. 10.1 Infill cost recovery from public damage. Councelor M. Wilson, please introduce your motion and your seconder. Oh, I'm sorry. It's not up here. Hold on a sec. Thank you. >> No. Uh, thank you. And I forgot to confer with the chair. I can withdraw this motion. I found out that there was direction given in previous years, but that the bylaw to enact the direction um hadn't been exercised. And I've received a commitment that staff will be initiating the necessary amendments to the bylaw by year's end um to ensure that when development takes place on an infill basis and there's damage to the public realm that um we will recover the cost of that damage. Thank you. >> Much appreciated. Thank you, counselor. So, we'll move on to notices of motion. So 11.1 public participation in land use planning process. Councelor Nan, please introduce your notice of motion. >> Land use planning processes. Um it's moved by myself and seconded by councelor Crutch. And I am seeking to wave or suspend the rules so that we can address the motion today. And I will be seeking if my colleagues permit me to suspend the rules and bring this motion forward today to defer the motion till after in camera. >> Okay. And your seconder? Okay. For sure. So it's councelor Cret as the seconder. Uh we're going to ask for a vote on suspending the rules in order to for the to allow the introduction of the motion at today's meeting. Please indicate your escribe vote now. What was the reason for >> I'm sorry I can't hear you. >> Oh, reason for >> um emerging um it's an emerging issue. Uh and I'll get into the details in camera >> from councelor crutch. And now we will indicate our escribe vote when it comes up. Vote is up. >> Okay, that carries 12 to zero. Um I guess you're gonna introduce it now or >> I can. >> Okay. And then we'll defer to after >> now and then defer it to after closed. So whereas meaningful public participation and engagement are fundamental principles of good planning, transparent governance and accountable decision-m and whereas land use planning decisions made under the planning act can have lasting impacts on neighborhood character, housing, infrastructure and quality of life. And whereas the city of Hamilton's official plan recognizes public engagement as an essential component of an effective and inclusive planning process. And whereas public confidence in the planning process is strengthened when residents understand their rights, opportunities to participate, and how their input is considered. Therefore, be it resolved that staff be directed report back to planning committee with a an overview of the importance of public participation and engagement throughout the planning process and how public input is received, documented, and considered in decision-m including before the committee of adjustment and Ontario land tribunal. B that opportunities available for public involvement at various stages of planning applications, including but not limited to the official plan amendments, zoning bylaw amendments, site piling control applications, and committee of adjustment matters. and see the course of action the public would have should an applicant interfere with the public's ability to participate in these planning processes. >> Thank you. At this time, I think we'll I don't know if we're going to go into discussion now or just go to to the close for that. Okay. Thank you so much. Uh Councelor Clark has his hand up. Um, okay. Councelor Clark, >> councelor Clark, you are muted. Sorry. >> Sorry. I uh chair I might have missed the motion to include this in camera and that may be a separate motion that you're bringing later on. Um but I'm intrigued by the motion enough that I would like to hear um um the challenges that are being described um put to our lawyers in CRA. >> Okay. So, I'm I'm assuming you're supportive of that's going in camera at this time. Oh, like at the appropriate time to hear it. Correct. >> Yes. I just wanted to make sure that it was included in the in camera. That's all. >> It is. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you. At this time, committee is going to go into close session for items 12.1, 12.2, and this item as well. Um motion. Do we need a Okay. >> Go ahead. Go ahead, councelor Nan. I'm still figuring this out. >> Yeah. And I apologize. I think we're all conferring on making sure that we're procedurally correct and that we are stating a reason to go into camera. Um so from that perspective maybe seeking a little bit of support from clerk that um seeking to go into camera in order to get legal >> advice. >> Thank you. Advice that is privilege to solicister client privilege I believe was something along those one extra privilege privilege in there but aside from that yes. >> Thank you. I just >> And do we require a motion to do that or is it do we just go into it >> publicly? >> Okay, thank you. So that's stated publicly. So now we have the reasoning why we're going to go into close for that particular issue. We also are going to close for a few other issues. So at this point um do we vote to go into closed? >> Oh page 15. >> 16. >> Does the committee wish to go into close session? >> Yes. If yes, may I please have a mo and seconder to move into the close session for items 12.1 12.2 and councelor Nan's motion. Councelor Wang, councelor Nan. Um pursuant to subsection 9.3, subsections E F and K of the city's procedural bylaw 12-021 as amended and section 2392 subsections E F and K of the Ontario Municipal Act 2001 as amended. As the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the municipality or local board, advice that is subject to the solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. Please indicate your hand vote now. I see mine. I see everybody's. Thank you. We're going in. Members of the public, the meeting will continue following the close session portion of the meeting. When you see the members of committee rejoin the meeting, the committee will wait up to 5 minutes upon reconvening and open session before proceeding with the meeting to provide members of the public and the media to return. Thank you. Welcome back from close session. 12.1 Appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal of Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment Number 232 and Rural Hamilton Official Plan Number 44, Framework for Processing and Evaluating urban boundary expansion applications citywide. May I please have a mover and seconder to approve that the directions provided to staff in close session respecting report LS260003 be approved. B that close session recommendations of confidential report LS2603 remain confidential until made public as the city's position before the Ontario Land Tribunal. And C that the balance of the report LS260003 remain confidential. Councelor Wang, Councelor Casar, let's indicate with our Eastcribe vote now. >> The robots. So, we're indicating our East Grove V Eastribe vote now for 12.1. >> We're doing a a hand vote. Councelor Francis. >> Okay, that's looks like it's unanimous. Okay. 12.2 LS24020. Appeal to the Ontario Land Tribune for lands located at 9285-9445 9511 9625 and 975120 Road West and 555 Glancaster Road. Glambert for lack of decision on urban Hamilton official plan amendment applications and you >> okay so UHOPA 20018 UHOPA 2019 and UHOPA 2020 in word 11 may I please have a mover and secondary to approve that councelor Wang going to go to councelor Paul's and um we're going to basically Please indicate your hand vote with a hand vote right now. Thank you. And that's carried. I'm going to page 15. This is a motion that came forward today. Uh 11.1 public participation in land use planning process. May I have a May I have the movers? Councelor Nan. Secer will be councelor Cret. Please indicate your escribe vote now. >> Okay, the vote is up. All those in support say yes. In disagreement say no. Submit it. Yes. >> Yes. >> Oh, we're waiting for the vote to be to come up. I don't know. >> Was it 10? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, the computer froze, but it was indicated by the clerk that that vote passed 10 to zero. At this time, it's adjournment time. It's 4:14. There being no further business, we are adjourned >> somewhat.